A Response to the Deceit of Abu Usaamah Khalifah and His Lying Tongue

A Response to the Deceit of Abu Usaamah Khalifah and His Lying Tongue

الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام على نبينا محمد وآله وصحبه أجمعين

Background

In the early hours of 25th July 2012, Abu Khadeejah wrote a blog entry with respect to the action of Abu Usaamah of translating for the "Turaathee" Adnaan Abdul-Qaadir who is a student/follower of the deviant, innovator, Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq.

Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq was a former-Ikhwani (upon the manhaj of Hassan al-Banna) who entered Salafiyyah and then tried to poison multitudes of Salafis in various parts of the world with his Ikhwani poison through the organization known as Ihyaa al-Turaath al-Islaamee (in Kuwait). He degraded the Scholars of the Sunnah and sought to poison the Salafi youth with the teachings of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, that were carefully formulated for a Salafi audience through the use of many false innovated principles. In his wake followed many others, such as Adnan Ar'oor and Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee. Both Adnaan Abdul-Qaadir (who is the appointed chief fundraiser for Green Lane Mosque) and his teacher (Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq) are Turaathees of Kuwait. The Scholar of Madeenah, Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee, described this group as follows:

"No, by Allaah! It is not upon the Salafee manhaj! By Allaah it is upon the Ikhwaanee Manhaj, firmly established...For indeed, Allaah did not burden us except with what we have knowledge of, and this Jam'iyyah is hizbee..."(Audio with Salafi Publications, Birmingham; See also Siyaanatus-Salafi, pp. 556-628 of Shaikh Ahmad Baazmool)

Like all politic groups with "Machiavellian tactics", when it became known that Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq had received severe criticisms from the Major Scholars including Shaykh Ibn Baz and Shaykh al-Albani as well as strong refutations from Shaykh's Rabee and Shaykh Muqbil and many others, they realised this would finish them as a party, and harm the political interests of the Jam'iyyah - so they made a pretence that he is no longer the head of the Jam'iyyah and is no longer affiliated with it. These are games that hizbee groups play in order to fool the Muslims at large. But the scholars and those firmly-grounded are not fooled by the tricks of the deviants.

Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee (hafidhahullaah) stated:

"So the point is, 'Abdur-Rahmaan 'Abdul-Khaaliq, he is not unknown to us, nor unknown to all of you, and he is their shaykh up until this very hour – even if they try to distance him from themselves."
(Audio with Salafi Publications)

Now of course Abu Usaamah cannot contest this reality because, as you will hear below, he confesses to not have researched the affair of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. As for Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee then he is fully acquainted with the affair for twenty years and more - he (hafidhahullaah) stated in the same audio: "And I, indeed I have spoken regarding this in many tapes, I have speech regarding this in two tapes [just] in Kuwait with them." Shaikh Ahmad Bazmool (hafidhahullaah) in Siyaanatus-Salafi devotes over seventy pages of the statements of the Scholars in refutation of Ihyaa Turaath and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. He quotes directly from the following Scholars:

Shaikh al-Albaanee

Shaikh Muqbil bin Haadee

Shaikh Ahmad bin Yahyah an-Najmee

Shaikh Rabee' bin Haadee al-Madkhalee

Shaikh Ubaid al-Jaabiree

Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee

Shaikh Ahmad as-Subay'ee

We can add to that dozens more: Shaikh Muhammad Ramzaan al-Haajiree, Shaikh Muhammad al-Anjaree, Shaikh Falaah Ismaa'eel, Shaikh Taariq as-Subay'ee and so on. And Abu Usaamah is in no position to contradict these scholars, because he himself bears witness that he doesn't know, he has no opinion because he hasn't studied the affair (listen to audio further below for his own admission). Shaikh Ahmad Bazmool on the other hand has studied the affair, and has seen the evidences, and has devoted over seventy pages to the statements of the scholars - so that should be crystal clear to the reader. There is no "six degrees of separation" principle being played with here, rather the guiding principle is the hadeeth of Allaah's Messenger (salallaahu alaihi wassallam): "A person is upon the Religion of his close companion, so look to whom you take as your companion." (Abu Dawood, Ahmad, at-Tirmidhee). And Ibn Mas'ood (radhi Allaahu 'anhu) said: "From the fiqh of a man is whom he walks with, and who he enters upon, and who he sits with. May Allaah raise the poet who said: Regarding a person do not ask a thing, rather just look at his companionship." (az-Zuhd of Ibn al-Mubaarak, Ibn Abee Shaibah, al-Ibaanah) So ponder O Sunni! Don't let this criminal try to invalidate the statements of the Messenger of Allaah (sallaallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the generality of the Sahaabah and the Salaf by making it look as if the Salafis are using "concepts invented by the kuffaar"! Through your own history of misguided choices, misguided alignments and following of desires, you Abu Usaamah have ended up on platforms, translating for students of Ikhwani innovators who brought innovated principles the likes of which have never been innovated in the history of Islaam. And thus, it is befitting, even if you were the most ignorant of people, that you are criticized for ending up in such a humiliating situation.

Moving on to Abu Khadeejah's Blog Post

Following the blog post, on the night of the same day, the 25th July, Abu Usaamah gave a video-recorded lecture in which he claimed to present what he calls "sincere advice". It was in reality, a compilation of utter confusion and blatant contradiction, much of which will be highlighted elsewhere (inshaa'allaah). Here we wish to deal with the essence of his (false) claim that Abu Khadeejah attempted to use the speech of the Shaykh, al-Imaam al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) in a deceptive way to show that Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq is an innovator. This lie becomes ever more serious when you come to realize (as is apparent from the video) that Abu Usamah was holding a printed copy of the blog post in front of his face for most of the lecture, yet he never once read where Abu Khadeejah had said that Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) had made tabdee' on Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq or even implied it. In a whole hour and more, not once does he read this alleged assertion of Abu Khadeejah? It is from our manhaj that we quote correctly, when we intend to refute someone. Abu Usaamah spent a whole hour playing with the minds of his audience, not once did he say, "Let us now read verbatim the speech of Abu Khadeejah so you can see for yourself." And the reason will become clear to you in what follows.

Abu Usaamah (as we have known him ever since he disgraced himself in the fitnah of another Ikhwani innovator, Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee) is a deceptive, conniving individual who sees nothing wrong with blatantly lying to an audience that isn't really going to make much effort to verify his claims. So ask the audience to verify. Read this document, check the quotes - come and talk to Abu Khadeejah, Abu Hakeem and Abu Iyaad - ask them for further clarification. Telephone or visit the living scholars we are quoting and verify what we have said. As Shaikh Muhammad al-Anjaree (hafidhahullaah) oft-repeats in his advices, "Salafiyyah is upon clarity, their is no deception and nothing hidden in our da'wah."

The Issue

Regarding the blog post in question, Abu Usaamah states that he has a copy saved of the post "in case it is taken down"! - don't worry brothers and sisters, we have no intention of taking it down. In this blog post, it was stated (emphasis added):

"Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq is the leading figurehead of the group Ihyaa Turaath of Kuwait - he was refuted by numerous major scholars, including the Shaykh, the Muhaddith and Imaam Al-Albaanee (rahimhullaah). He was declared an innovator by the Imaam of Yemen Muqbil bin Haadee (rahimahullaah).

So Abu Khadeejah clearly made a careful distinction between the refutation of al-Albaanee and the tabdee' of Shaikh Muqbil (rahimahumallaah), which Abu Usaamah failed to make mention of throughout his hour long rant. Then after this statement, Abu Khadeejah cited a quote of Shaykh al-Albaanee indicating the nature of the refutation by Shaykh al-Albaanee, which is the declaration of his manhaj to be Ikhwanee. Within the speech of Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) are the following disparaging remarks:

"So he [i.e. al-Albaanee himself] knows the circumstances in which the Muslims live, but he adheres to the Sharee'ah rulings and he does not hold that there is any way for a Muslim to say, 'The goal justifies the means,' and if Abdur-Rahmaan were to be asked, and he was a student of mine in the Islamic University, if he were asked or if I had the opportunity to meet him, 'Do you say that the goal justifies the means?' Then he would say, 'No,' because this is a principle of kufr. But if we direct his attention to the fact that he acts in accordance with it, and his life, and what he declares permissible, and that which he clearly states to be permissible from some of the forbidden things, then this is implementation of this principle which is such that no Muslim can consent to it. So he must reject it. But we say, 'What is the benefit of saying one thing and doing something else?'"

And also:

"So therefore we ask for this brother of ours (Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq), and for those who have been mislead by his example into contravening the Sharee'ah in some rulings, we ask Allaah to guide and grant us and them that we truly follow the way of the Book and the Sunnah, upon the manhaj of as-Salafus-Saalih, and I return to saying that this circumvention of certain Sharee'ah rulings is contrary to the way of the Muslims throughout the ages. "And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believer's way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination." Soorah an-Nisaa (4):115. So we ask Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, to make us aware of the way of the first Muslims, and guides us to proceed upon that way."

In these two passages there is a clear, plain refutation of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq and his manhaj by Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah):

"Firstly, he organised a group, a partisan-organisation, do you know this? Abdur-Rahmaan. This partisan organisation, this formation of a group is not upon the Salafee manhaj that we call to..."

"contravenes the Sharee'ah...",

"this circumvention of certain Sharee'ah rulings is contrary to the way of the Muslims throughout the ages",

"and for those who have been mislead by his example"

"he [i.e. Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq] clearly states to be permissible from some of the forbidden things"

"this implementation of this principle is such that no Muslim can consent to it..."

"What is the benefit of saying one thing and doing another"?

Citation of the verse(!): "And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believer's way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination."

From here, there are now a number of issues:
a) is there contextual disagreement between what Abu Khadeejah said and what he quoted from Shaykh al-Albaanee? Answer: No.
b) Has it been claimed that Shaykh al-Albaanee made tabdee' of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq? Answer: No.
c) Is there any apparent praise or tazkiyah in the speech of Shaykh al-Albaanee for Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq? We will address these issues below inshaa'allaah.

The Question Abu Usaamah Dared Not Address

Sitting in front of his audience with a print out of the blog post in his hand, knowing full well that, at that point in time, none of his audience are able to read verbatim exactly what was in the blog post, there was an obvious question that Abu Usaamah dared not address: Abu Khadeejah had stated:

Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq is the leading figurehead of the group Ihyaa Turaath of Kuwait - he was refuted by numerous major scholars, including the Shaykh, the Muhaddith and Imaam Al-Albaanee (rahimhullaah)...

The real and true question is: "Does the speech of al-Albaanee that was quoted amount to a refutation or not, exactly as described in the blog post?" And the answer is: If you do not see the speech of al-Albaanee as comprising a refutation, then you are dishonest or lacking in intellect, or both! The fact that Shaykh al-Albaane should mention incidentally that Abdur-Rahmaan was a former good student, and that he is Salafi, does nothing to change the fact that Shaykh Albaanee's words are a refutation of the manhaj of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq. Can anyone dispute that fact? In fact is there any Scholar who has ever studied these words of Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) walked away and said: "Maashaallaah! That was a nice praiseworthy statement of Shaikh al-Albaanee for Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq."?! (See Siyaanatus-Salafi min Waswasati wa Talbeesaat Alee al-Halabee, pp. 613-617 of Shaikh Ahmad Baazmool).

What the Skull of Abu Usaamah Is Unable To Absorb

This is it here: That a person can be described as a Salafi and still be criticised and refuted for mistakes and errors arising from him, even in the Usool. And these scholars may not remove him from Salafiyyah from the outset, even if at the same time they refute and criticize him, because to them, they have not seen that the proof has been established upon that individual to warrant expelling him from Salafiyyah. However, to others, they observe, witness and experience other realities (in more detail) and declare such a person an innovator because they have experienced what others have not, and they have proven that the hujjah (proof) has been established upon that individual, as is the case with the likes of Shaikh Muqbil bin Haadee (rahimahullaah) - but what is common between the two is the criticism and the refutation of the oppositions of this opposer - and this is where Abu Usaamah slips up, or deliberately deceives his audience who like him clearly "have not studied the issue" and thus believe his conniving deceptions. So allow us to begin opening the eyes of those who may not know, so that they, like us, may see his lies and political machinations for what they are.

The Aql of Abu Usaamah Illustrated...

Here we have Abu Usaamah revealing the reality of his aql. In his so called "sincere advice" of the night of the 25th July, he said (regarding what is contained in Shaykh al-Albaanee's speech and which Abu Usaamah sees as praise):

Because he said some nice things about Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, but so did al-Albaanee.If you go back to what Abu Khadeejah posted. Its [not] as if he doesn't know what he posted himself. If you go back and read what he posted, al-Albaanee was praising Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, "he was one of my students...", "he was from the best students..."

The things that Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) stated were incidental to the main point of discussion which is that this man Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq has come along with an innovated manhaj - and he is propagating a methodology through certain books by which the youth are being driven away from the Scholars (such as al-Albaanee, Ibn Baaz and Ibn Uthaimeen) - and speaking ill of them. So Shaykh al-Albaanee is simply mentioning in response and as historical record certain things about Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, that he was a former student of his in the Jaami'ah (in Madinah). And in the second statement quoted from al-Albaanee in the quote, he says that Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq was "one of the best of the youth who were attentive to the lessons and what was taught..." Then the Shaykh proceeds to highlight the criticism against him that his manhaj is Ikhwaanee and he follows the way of Salman al-Awdah.

Now, this is like if al-Hasan al-Basree were to say (just by way of illustration), that "Waasil bin Ataa (the founder of the Mu'tazilah) was one of my zealous students, attentive to lessons....", or Imaam Ahmad saying, "al-Haarith al-Muhaasibee (a Kullaabee, person of kalaam) was one of my companions, associates, attentive to lessons and readings...." or whatever else resembles that. And we don't mean to diminish the status of al-Haarith al-Muhaasibee by likening him to Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq or raise the status of the latter by likening him to the former by way of this example, that is not intended, but we are just highlighting the reality of Abu Usaamah's sophistry!

So after this historical factual note, al-Hasan al-Basree proceeds (by way of illustration) to refute the way of Waasil bin Ataa, or Imaam Ahmad proceeds to refute the way of al-Haarith. With which 'aql (intellect) would anyone understand this to be al-muwaazanah or an intended praise and tazkiyah of the individual concerned? Yes, only with the defunct intellect of Abu Usaamah. Amazingly by some conjuring trick, this kadhdhaab has turned the refutation and criticism of Imaam al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) into a praise of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, and even worse than that, we have encountered naive brothers who now actually believe the above statements of Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) are in support of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq! It would truly be laughable were it not so serious.

We are simply seeing a repeat of what Abu Usaamah was doing ten years ago when he meddled in the fitnah of al-Ma'ribee, the Ikhwaani innovator, and at that time he was appropriately declared an Innovator by Shaykh Ahmad al-Najmee (rahimahullaah):

Question: "O Shaykh Ahmad we have with us in America a man called Abu Usaamah who is considered to be from the Du'aat, he aids and supports Abul-Hasan and he calls some noble Salafi brothers ghulaat (extremists), muqallidah (blind followers),and muhqiboon (the people whose religion is the religion of the one they blindly follow), so what is the legislated position from this man and how should we deal with him?

The noble Scholar (rahimahullaah) answered:

موقفكم منه كموقفكم من أهل البدعة , أعرض عنه و اتركه

"Your position with him is the same as your position with the People of Innovation. Turn away from him and abandon him.

When Abu Usaamah was abandoned, as all deviants pretending to have aql ought to be, it was only a short while later that he turned up on the shores and green pastures of Britain to play the field. This history and reality is hidden to many of those who are delighted to hear the falsehood of Abu Usaamah in his so called "sincere advice".

Abu Usaamah Plays Games with the Minds of the People

As for Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) saying that he (Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq) is "Salafee", then because Abu Usaamah is a pauper in his understanding of how to read historical narratives, he is blinded to the following reality and matter of fact:

When a person who is a Salafi (or at least ascribes to Salafiyyah) begins to show signs of misguidance - whatever form that might be - then there is nothing wrong if a person of knowledge says that, "So and so is a Salafee, but he has something of such and such misguidance; or something of the ways of such and such sect." This simply means that whilst the scholar affirms that the individual is Salafi (at this point in time), observations are made upon errors, mistakes or misguidance that are visible from that individual's statements or actions - this is an obligation upon the Ummah by kifaayah - i.e. that the evil must be refuted by some from this Ummah.

This in reality is a disparagement or criticism of the methodology that person has taken, despite that person being (at the present time) considered a Salafi or at least ascribing to Salafiyyah in what is apparent. And this is precisely what Shaykh al-Albaanee has done here. At the same time, that person can no longer be said to be Salafi once the proof is established against him and he continues upon his path, insistent upon his deviation. It is simply a matter of reality and fact that it is not within the knowledge of a given scholar that the proof has been established upon that individual by others from the people of knowledge. Due to these circumstantial reasons, he may maintain that the individual concerned is considered Salafi alongside refuting him and criticising him for his deviations in Manhaj that have appeared. If Abu Usaamah understands the speech of Shaykh al-Albaanee in a way other than this, then we make du'a for his 'aql to be restored. However, this is not a matter of possessing 'aql or not possessing it. Abu Usaamah clearly knows these realities, but he is following his hawaa (desires) and instead asks meaningless, stupid questions to the bamboozle audience such as "So did Shaykh al-Albani make muwaazanaat?!" This type of rhetoric is far-removed from any serious knowledge-based discussion and is simply fooling with the minds of the people, which Abu Usaamah apparently believes he is very skilled at. When a man has years and years of experience in playing the field in the USA and toying with entire communities in more ways than one, then gaming "corny" Brits is a breeze and a walk in the park!

Shaykh al-Albaanee's words regarding Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq are not be considered al-Muwaazanah (as Abu Usaamah very cheaply tries to rhetorically imply as a means of riling up the audience and fooling with their minds) because Shaykh al-Albaanee is mentioning what he knows of the man and his history, i.e. that he was Ikhwaanee, then he became Salafi, was an attentive student at the Jaami'ah, then he went to Kuwait and entered into hizbiyyah, opposed the Salafi Manhaj, whilst all the time Shaykh al-Albaanee withholds from tabdee' (because that requires establishment of the proof and prior to that, a person has not left Salafiyyah and can still be said to be Salafi). Hence, Shaykh al-Albaanee said that "he is Salafi" but "his manhaj is Ikhwaanee", because Shaykh al-Albaanee, like any other Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, is not going to make tabdee' unless he has established the hujjah upon a person or it has come to his knowledge that the hujjah has indeed been established. But to other scholars, who established the proof upon Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, then they declared him to be an innovator. Shaykh al-Albaanee did not criticise them. And this is not to say that 'ijmaa (or consensus) of the scholars is required upon the tabdee' of a person before one can warn against him. That is another false Halabite principle we can deal with in another article, inshaa'Allaah, as well as the claim of some that "the scholars differ, so I'll take my pick". The differing of the scholars is not a proof in the Deen, except for the one who does not know his Deen or follows his desires! Throughout this lecture of Abu Usaamah, one sees him merely following his desires - taking what suits his hawaa and leaving off that which doesn't take his fancy.

Alhamdulillaah, Allaah exposes the conniving liars for what they are, no matter how much they try to embellish their lies with flowery speech. Here then O reader, enjoy reading the following refutation of Shaykh al-Albaanee against Abdullaah Azzaam the Ikhwaanee. Note how Shaykh al-Albaanee also mentions within the course of his refutation some historical positive things about Abdullaah Azzaam (you can access it in audio here):

Of interest is the first paragraph:

Abdullaah Azzaam used to be here, from al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen, and after close to seven or eight years, al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen took a resolution to boycott al-Albaanee, boycotting his lessons and boycotting everyone who ascribes to his da'wah. Alongside the knowledge that Abdullaah Azzaam was the only man from amongst al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen who would hardly hear that Shaykh al-Albaanee has a jalsah in such and such house except that he was the first of those present and with him would be a small notebook and a small pen with which he would write summaries. This man (who was) loving (i.e. of al-Albaanee) in truth, when the resolution for boycotting al-Albaanee was made, he never returned to be present with al-Albaanee absolutely.

Then the Shaykh goes on to tell the story of what happened as to how he was slandered by Abdullaah Azzaam in a matter relating to criticism of Sayyid Qutb and how he never retracted from that slander even after the Shaykh pulled him up in person, and eventually Shaykh al-Albaanee referred to such people (as Abdullaah Azzaam) as "Ahl al-Ahwaa."

Now what do we take from this? Just because Shaykh al-Albaaanee mentioned a positive factual detail about Azzaam from a historical perspective, is that considered an actual praise that can be used to flatly contradict the disparagement that follows? That incidental detail is only factual information. Within the context of the speech being made as a whole, it is not intended as a tazkiyah or praise. Rather, it is simply to mention history. Unless of course you are in the twighlight zone of Abu Usaamah. As for those who live in actual reality, then this simply tells us is that Shaykh al-Albaanee is informing us of a historical note about how dedicated al-Azzaam used to be before he fell into bigoted tahazzub and oppression. That's all there is to it. And that's the same with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. He was a dedicated student, from the best of students, and he then entered into bid'ah and dalaalah! Clearly, being from the best of students did not prevent him from being misguided and misguiding others - therein is a great lesson, as Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq was a graduate from the Islamic University of Madinah, yet he deviated away from Salafiyyah, attacked the Scholars, regarded himself to be authority and innovated into the Deen of Allaah.

Proof That Abu Usaamah Has Lost His Intellect ('Aql) For Those Who Missed it Ten Years Ago

The evidence is littered all over the so called "sincere advice" of this kadhaab maftoon, one only need to listen to his confused ramblings:

I'm not here to defend or to support or to prove ash-Shaykh Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq is Salafi or not, Ikhwani or not, but the point that I am trying to make is, it's deceipt, its not fair, its not, it's not correct. There are some Shaykhs who said "He is a Mubtadi'" and some Shaykhs who said, "He's not a Mubtadi'". If you ask me my opinion, I don't have an opinion. I did'nt read about the issue.

Does this man even know what he is saying and what comes out of his head? And is his mesmerised audience any wiser? Abu Usaamah confirms some scholars declared Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq to be a Mubtadi'. But he says, he is not interested. It does not concern him because he did not read up on it and he does not have an opinion.

I felt when he got into politics and took Salafis into politics just as is the case in Pakistan with Ahl al-Hadeeth, when Ahl al-Hadeeth went into politics in Pakistan, there are going to be compromises, there are going to be problems because you have to practice those Machiavellian principles, the enemy of my enemy is my friend even if he is a Shi'ite. You have to practice those types of things. You can as hard to practice al-Islaam. I am not here to say "Salafi" or not "Salafi", its not my issue.

In two breaths, one following the other, Abu Usaamah declares himself a confused individual and we have an attentive audience lapping up this man's nonsense. "There are some Shaykhs who said "He is a Mubtadi'" and some Shaykhs who said, "He's not a Mubtadi'". If you ask me my opinion, I don't have an opinion. I did'nt read about the issue..." he says first, then he says, "I felt when he got into politics and took Salafis into politics just as is the case in Pakistan with Ahl al-Hadeeth, when Ahl al-Hadeeth went into politics in Pakistan, there are going to be compromises, there are going to be problems because you have to practice those Machiavellian principles, the enemy of my enemy is my friend even if he is a Shi'ite. You have to practice those types of things...."

So this man knows, but he is playing games. He has been playing these games ever since the fitnah of al-Ma'ribee, pretending to be ignorant, pretending he does not know - yet saying "I don't hold the man (Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee) to be a deviant". He ignored the refutations of Shaikh Rabee' and claimed he was waiting for the "committee" of Madinah, when they refuted al-Ma'rabee, he continued with his desires and treachery. (See the refutation of Abu Uwais - rahimahullaah - on Abu Usaamah al-Kadhdhaab) . So Abu Usaamah knows the reality! But he is a kadhdhab, and one who plays with people, a politician for the unlearned, well-trained through his experiences with communities across the US. Abu Usaamah certainly knows enough that Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq is upon the destructive path of al-Ikhwaan, and he knows sure enough that Scholars have declared him a Mubtadi'. But as a good "Salafi" da'ee, Abu Usaamah, out in the field of da'wah calling to Sunnah and warning from bid'ah in the right way as he claims, alas, he doesn't have an opinion. He "never looked into the issue." If that is the case, then here is some sincere advice to you Abu Usaamah, and by Allaah, it is more sincere, and more truthful than your claimed "advice" on the night of 25th July ever was:

Abu Usaamah, if you didn't study the matter as you claim, and you don't have an opinion (and we have little reason to believe you are truthful, but let us assume for a moment that you are truthful), and you affirm at least that Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq has deviations and you affirm that Scholars declared him a mubtadi' then the best course for you is to stay silent because as you have been informed many times over "silence is golden" (especially in Ramadan). Don't speak about the issue because by your own admittance, you don't have baseerah (insight) in this issue - so your ignorant speech counts for nothing. You don't have an opinion as you claim and your opinion is as worthless as ever - "who told you you have an 'indee?!". Don't sit in front of audiences recording videos spouting nonsense. Be a good little self-admitted ignoramus murji' - with the meaning of one who defers matters claiming to have no opinion despite the fact that evidence is as compelling as the daylight sun.

As for Salafis with whom evidences are established from notable Scholars some of whom that made outright tabdee' - then don't slander those Salafis who narrate from the Scholars, don't revile them or attack them - and that is even if they point out your treachery O Abaa Usaamah! Not even when they point out your treachery to the Salafi Manhaj when you translate for the students of Ikhwani innovator who:

a) legislated into the deen of Allaah that which Allaah gave them no permission,
b) who reviled the Major Scholars calling them "mummified bodies of a long gone age",
c) who innovated in matters of Tawheed and it's categories in order to support the doctrines of Sayyid Qutb,
d) who traversed the earth splitting communities of Salafis in every place,
e) who entered Ikhwan, Tabligh and Hizb ut-Tahreer into the Salafiyyah and the Saved Sect and many other disgraces.

Instead of maligning them and attacking them for your own personal reasons, show an ounce of huumility and honesty and say, "These brothers have strong reasons and proofs for the position they hold and they have many scholars who have evidences for their refutations, criticism (or tabdee'). So these brothers are simply following evidences and the issue ultimately comes down to evidences. And the principle is that the Scholar who has clear, established proof and evidence is a hujjah over the Scholar who has only general knowledge and over one who is (allegedly) without opinion like myself." This is what sincerity demands. And all those scholars we mentioned have provided compelling proof and are collectively a proof in the matter that cannot be denied 'aqlan or shar'an.

There is enough evidence, just in this post alone, to establish that what you were described with, "a treacherous betrayer" could not be more accurate. Inshaa'allaah we will follow up with more points in following posts.

In conclusion, take note dear reader, nowhere does Abu Khadeejah allude that Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) declared Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq to be an innovator, rather, that quote from Shaykh al-Albaanee simply indicates that major scholars (besides Shaykh Muqbil and Shaikh Rabee) recognize that the man is Ikhwani in his manhaj. Anyone who has 'aql (reason) and who reads Abu Khadeejah's post will see that clearly. Abu Usaamah has no shame in blatantly lying to his audience, holding the actual paper in his hand of the blog post which clearly contradicts what he is claiming with his tongue. He shamelessly does not quote the words of Abu Khadeejah, because then his game would be over. Allaahul-Musta'aan such deception, sitting in a house of Allaah in the nights of Ramadaan(!)

GLMCC and the Youtube Video

Green Lane Mosque and Abu Usamah Understand that Affiliation With Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and Abdullaah as-Sabt and Them Being Praised is a Serious Liability in the Field of Da'wah

الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام على نبينا محمد وآله وصحبه أجمعين

In the first post above, we learned how Abu Usaamah sat in front of his audience, being recorded for Youtube, whilst holding a printed copy of Abu Khadeejah's blog post in his hand for most of his lecture (as it so appears). He then proceeded to play with the minds of the audience without once ever saying, "Let us now quote verbatim, word-for-word what Abu Khadeejah has written." The aim of his lecture was not to give sincere advice but was simply another opportunity to attack Salafi Publications and the Salafi Manhaj that they follow and defend.

Abu Usaamah. He said in his lecture:

But the words are only a few and from what he [Abu Khadeejah] wrote that Green Lane was trying to take the thing down, I asked the brothers at Green Lane, did you try to take that down, they said, "No we didn't try to take it down." So if they did or didn't, it has nothing to do with me, but they said that that they didn't. I don't know why it's down now, it has nothing to do with me, and the brothers who are responsible for the audios at Green Lane Masjid said it has nothing to do with them.

The Actual Facts

Here is a screenshot of the video page on Youtube after an attempt was made to try and take it down:

The take-down attempt was made by GLMCC (Green Lane Masjid and Community Centre) as is clearly indicated in the message that Youtube put up to replace the video. But then there is also the email:

So there is no doubt that a legal attempt was made by GLMCC (formerly Jam'iyyah Ahl al-Hadeeth). So who are the true and real liars now? The words "unfair" and "deceit" are mentioned quite often by Abu Usamah in his lecture as a ploy, i.e. "If I say it often enough, they'll believe me"! So those [not so] noble "brothers at Green Lane" have apparently lied we can assume.

Now, the obvious question which should arise in the minds of everyone is: Why did GLMCC scramble to have this audio removed (the one in which Adnaan Abdul-Qaadir is praising the innovator Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq)?

The answer is that this is a serious liability. Those who are behind GLMCC are people who have some history in the da'wah and they do actually understand the implications - indeed they are fully aware of the misguidance of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq going right back to the mid-nineties. Just as Abu Usaamah also understands the implications, but he is just a deceiving kadhdhaab and an equally cunning politician. For that reason they took these steps in order to have this video clip removed, and from what it appears they also removed it from their own website. So here is an explanation of this affair:

Why Did GLMCC File a Copyright Claim? And Why Did Abu Usaamah Scramble to Give His "Sincere Advice", which was Really Intended to Fool with the Minds of His Audience and to Attack Salafi Publications and More Seriously, the Salafi Methodology

Here is the the answer: A series of Innovators appeared in the late 1980s attempting to bring the da'wah of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna into the ranks of the Salafis. They ascribed to Salafiyyah in what was apparent and at face value, they were accepted as Salafis by the people of knowledge. When they first started, not many of the Scholars were aware of their plots and plans. As a result, many of the Scholars at the time may have had positive things to say about them. But as time went on and these innovators revealed more and more of their methodologies and goals, the truth became known. From amongst the heads of these innovators was Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq who propounded the doctrines of

Tawhid al-Hakimiyyah as an independent fourth category,

Permitted the multiplicity of groups (such as Ikhwan, Tabligh and Hizb ut-Tahrir),

Permitted entrance into democracy to allow "political work",

He invented new terms behind which the misguidances of Qutb and Banna were concealed - terms such as "al-'amal al-jamaa'ee" (collective work), "ta'addud al-jamaa'aat" (multiplicity of groups), "haakimiyyah".

He mocked and reviled the Major Scholars, claiming they were like "mummies" who knew nothing of today's realities.

He also authored many books the aim of which was to propagate this manhaj to a Salafi audience.

The Jami'yyah Ihyaa al-Turath (the bastion of the thoughts of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq) went to every location it could find Salafis with a view to calling them to this new-age Ikhwani manhaj. As a result, spliting was observed in many parts of the world, such as in Kuwait, Saudi, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere. Under the guise of "establishing Salafiyyah" this Jam'iyyah was simply calling to the fikr (ideology) of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq, which is the fikr of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna - two misguided deviant Ash'arees. If there are some readers who do not wish to believe that Turaath and Ikhwaan are glove and hand united in political goals, working together, and you do not wish to take the speech of the Salafi Scholars quoted by Shaikh Ahmad Baazmool in over 70 pages, then we are sure you will believe the confessions of a leading Turaathee known as Waa'il al-Hasaawee, the former Editor-in-Chief of Al-Furqaan (the magazine of Ihyaa'at-Turaath) and a member of Ihyaa Turaath's board:

"And in Kuwait there is coordination between the two most important Islaamic groups, and they are al-Ikhwaanul-Muslimoon and the Salafees [i.e. Jam'iyyah Ihyaa' at-Turaath], in numerous areas, like the field of Relief and collective work, even if what is needed is more than that…"
Speaker: Waa'il al-Hasaawee, Source: Al-Anbaa' Newspaper, No: 6159 pg. 27 Date: 2/7/1993

Then a decade later, the same Turaathee, remained glued to his stance:

"More than 30 years ago, there emerged the two biggest Islaamic groups in Kuwait. They are the group The Constitutional Movement (ICM) (i.e. Ikhwaanul-Mujrimeen) and the Salaf (i.e. At-Turaath), and they were able by the blessing of Allaah the Most High to realize many achievements that there are no comparison to in the sphere of Kuwait, and they have earned the love and respect of all. And these two groups have the ability to coordinate in that which is between them, and cooperation in many affairs, charitable and political affairs.. and joint coordination in elections and the functions of the Parliament, and coordination in the elections of the Teachers' Committee and the Students Union and the coordination (related to) communication and other than it. And there is no doubt that the aspiration of these two groups [Ikhwaan and Turaath] and those who love them is greater than that coordination. We ask Allaah to bring about more."
Speaker: Waa'il al-Hasaawee, Source: Ar-Ra'ee Al-'Aam newspaper, No: 13123, Date: 26/5/2003

All the tribulations to enter the Salafi da'wah over the past 20 years came from these people in reality. Over here in the West the Qutbiyyah like Ali al-Timimi from the USA and others in the UK were propagating this same Ikhwani manhaj utilising the fikr of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and his works. All of them revolved around the works of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq and they have not ceased to this day teaching from these books in their centres. In fact, his works are central to the da'wah of many of the Takfiris. This is why the hardcore Qutbiyyah like those in Lewisham (London), use the books of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq to preach the manhaj of Sayyid Qutb.

When the misguidance of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq became more apparent, he was refuted by some of the Scholars. From them were Shaykh Rabee bin Haadee, Shaykh Muqbil bin Haadee, and likewise, his Ikhwani manhaj was spoken of by Shaykh al-Albaanee. Shaykh Ibn Baaz also wrote a refutation of some of his errors. A group of other scholars also refuted him. When it appeared that the disparaged Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq's leadership of this Jam'iyyah was not beneficial for the better interests of the party's (Ikhwani) goals, a policy was adopted whereby there would no longer be any apparent connection between Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq and Jam'iyyah Ihyaa al-Turaath. He remains the "spiritual leader" and "shaykh" of the partisan organization, and the fikr of the Jam'iyyah is the very fikr of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. Using this diplomatic tact, they have roped in many unsuspecting people from whom they hide the realities. However, it is from the wisdom of Allaah that no Innovator on this earth will be left unopposed in his misguidance, for Allaah mobilizes at least one or more from the scholars who will fulfil the trust (of not concealing the truth) and expose his misguidance, and in the whole history of Islaam, since innovation appeared, it has always been the case for the most part that only a selection of scholars took the lead in refuting innovation and its people, in terms of writing, authoring and warning. So a significant group of scholars knew the reality and exposed Ihyaa Turaath's evil designs and exposed the fact that Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq has not ceased to be their guide.

Indeed Ihyaa Turaath themselves could not maintain the lie, that is why Adnaan Abdul-Qaadir praised both of his Shaikhs, both leading figures in Turaath - he just could not resist the temptation. These are not loose and distant alliances with "six degrees of separation" that Abu Usamah al-Kadhdhaab would have you believe, they comprise a cosy happy family! And that is why in the Arabic language 2011 fundraising brochure of Green Lane Mosque, Adnaan Abdul-Qaadir is appointed as: "Project Supervisor in the State of Kuwait". These Turaathees certainly understand and grasp the fact that GLMCC is a springboard for pushing the fikr of Turaath in these Western lands.

As for Abu Usaamah and those who now run GLMCC (which was formerly Jam'iyyah Ahl a-Hadeeth but has now morphed into GLMCC after a long standing legal dispute), they have a history in the da'wah in the 90s. They are not ignorant and foolish enough not to grasp the liability and implication of this audio clip for which they were criticized, for hosting and allowing themselves to be a platform of propagation and praise of an evil Ikhwani innovator who brought destruction and turmoil in Salafi communities all over the globe. They are fully aware of the issues and they know the realities have been made clear by the Scholars. Abu Usaamah is just a grand deceiver who is pretending he does not know, has not researched the issue and does not form an opinion These are the games of a man given to treachery no doubt.

In a nutshell, here is the crux of the matter: The reason for these activities of GLMCC and Abu Usaamah is that this incident validates all the criticism that has been made against the Jam'iyyah Ahl a-Hadeeth (Green Lane Mosque) historically, and it has now turned into a liability for this new organization GLMCC. Even though the names have changed, the manhaj has not. They are still on the same page. It is for this very reason that GLMCC filed a copyright complaint and Abu Usaamah flew into motion with his lying, deceitful and cunning tricks upon the people which even a hypnotist could not pull off, when he pretended to give "sincere advice" which in reality was just another veiled opportunity to attack Salafi Publications, distort clear usool (foundations) of the Salaf manhaj and make fools of his audience.

More Fraudulent Tricks of Abu Usaamah

Throughout these articles from now on, the reader should understand that we are refuting a person who has been declared to be upon innovation by the great Scholar Ahmad bin Yahyah an-Najmee (rahimahullaah).

Question: "O Shaykh Ahmad we have with us in America a man called Abu Usaamah who is considered to be from the Du'aat, he aids and supports Abul-Hasan and he calls some noble Salafi brothers ghulaat (extremists), muqallidah (blind followers),and muhqiboon (the people whose religion is the religion of the one they blindly follow), so what is the legislated position from this man and how should we deal with him?

The noble Scholar (rahimahullaah) answered:

موقفكم منه كموقفكم من أهل البدعة , أعرض عنه و اتركه

"Your position with him is the same as your position with the People of Innovation. Turn away from him and abandon him.

When Abu Usaamah was abandoned, as all deviants pretending to have aql ought to be, it was only a short while later that he turned up on the shores and green pastures of Britain to play the field. This history and reality is hidden to many of those who are delighted to hear the falsehood of Abu Usaamah in his so called "sincere advice".

Do not be deceived by this liar when he says that those brothers in the USA who asked Shaikh Ahmad an-Najmee didn't tell the Shaikh that they were talking about me (i.e. ath-Thahabi). The fact is they asked the Shaikh in 2003, and he died (rahimahullaah) in 2008. That gave this liar 5 years to go and see this Imaam or phone him, to explain to him. Now after his death, he is attempting to re-write history. Then he proceeds to try and further nullify the ruling of this great Scholar by adding that he was one of those who Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin criticised - this is the Machiavellian politics of the hizbees. Our message to Abu Usamah: Stop digging your own pit any deeper than it already is - you're losing grasp of reality. The reason for the Jarh (disparagement) of the Allaamah Ahmad an-Najmee (rahimahullaah) is clear to see, it is evidence-based and you have oft-repeated it ever since. It is for this reason you translate the praise of the innovators, and then go forth and praise the same innovators by lying upon Shaikh al-Albaanee. You have not repented because you are an arrogant, stubborn soul that does not take a reminder when it is given, indeed you have only become more severe in your opposition to usool of Salafiyyah. You are a person who is constantly tripping over his own feet. It is for this reason you are abandoned by the Salafis who are made aware of your condition. The only person who remains in your company and supports you is: 1. the one who doesn't know you or 2. the one who doesn't know the Manhaj as it should be known, or 3. the one who is an arrogant wicked liar like you.

O reader! May Allaah give you understanding. When a person of insight and basic knowledge of the Manhaj looks at this buffoon, they will not fail to realise that his real aim is to undermine the Manhaj of Salafiyyah.

DEALING WITH HIS CLAIM
That "those SP brothers" are always saying "The Shaikh, the Shaikh said..."

Firstly, NO Salafi should make any apology for referring back to the Scholars. They are the inheritors of the Prophets - they are the ones for whom even the fish in the oceans seek forgiveness. They are the Jamaa'ah as Ibn al-Mubaarak stated; they are the Victorious Group (at-Taa'ifatul-Mansoorah) as at-Tirmidhee stated. They are the ones who give life to the dead, by the permission of Allaah, those whose hearts have been killed by Iblees - as Imaam Ahmad stated. So this is shear belittlement of the status that the Salafis give to the Scholars. He has again opened the door to corruption and misguidance.

This is yet another deceitful ploy of this treacherous kadhdhaab designed to fool the audience into thinking that those who oppose him are mere blind-followers who have not studied and they glorify the personalities (at-taqdees ul-ashkhaas) and treat them as if they cannot be wrong. Abu Usamah stated:

"..the Salafiyyah of the Taqdees of the ashkhaas (glorification of personalties).. the Shaikh, the Shaikh said, the Shaikh, the Shaikh said..."

Yet in almost the same breath he claims that his position towards Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee is the same as that of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, and if you criticise me, then you must criticise him! So who is the muqallid and the ignorant blind-follower? He accuses others of blindly following, then he claims: I'm with Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin! So where is the proofs and evidences now O Abaa Usaamah!

Worse still is that it is as if he is saying, 'I will follow the Shaikh, whether he is right or wrong, and if you criticise me, you are criticising the Shaikh'! Just like when you say to the Hanafi, 'Imaan increases and decreases', so he responds, 'No, it does not increase or decrease - and if you criticise me you are criticising Abu Haneefah!'. Or when a Salafi informs the Ash'aree, 'We take the Names and Attributes of Allaah upon their apparent meanings', he responds, 'No! al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr made some ta'weel so I too will make ta'weel. And if you criticise me, you are criticising Ibn Hajr!' From these simple examples the reader can clear see Abu Usamah's self-contradictory, deceitful, lying speech - which in the end shows he is nothing more than a muqallid hiding behind the saying of one scholar in order to defend his support of the innovators. He accuses others of taqleed, whilst he himself raises it's banner! He even claims that Salafi Publications has come with a Salafiyyah Jadeedah (a new type of Salafiyyah)! Where have we heard that before? More on that a little later.

On the 18th January 2003, on SalafiTalk.net we quoted Abu Usamah uttering the following words:

"...WHAT I STILL BELIEVE TODAY and all praise is for Allaah, that Abul-Hasan IS SALAFI and that the MAJOR SCHOLARS of this era, Imaam al-Albaanee and Imaam Ibn Baaz and Imaam Ibn 'Uthaimeen and Shaikh Muqbil (may Allah have mercy upon them) they all died while being pleased with him - and that carries some weight and consideration in this Deen”! (raghm unoofihim)

Firstly, all of these Scholars died before the innovations of Abul-Hasan became apparent and open! So what type of fool would quote them whilst knowing that? Just read the statements of the Scholars who were presented with the deviations of al-Ma'rabee. (From the book of Shaikh Ahmad bin Umar Baazmool (hafidhahullaah) in his excellent refutation of Ali al-Halabi):

Al-Allaamah Abdullaah Al-Ghudayaan (rahimahullaah) said when asked concerning some of the saying of Abul-Hasan:

"This man is subjected to trials and tribulations, he has little manners and is foolish."
[Source: Source: Siyaanatus-Salafi, p.533]

Al-Allaamah Ahmad bin Yahyah An-Najmi (rahimahullaah) said:

Indeed, it has been finally established with me that Abul Hasan is a Mubtadi (innovator)! I hold this as by religion, and this is what I affirm, and success lies with Allaah."
[Source: Source: Siyaanatus-Salafi, p.533]

Imaam Muqbil bin Haadee Al-Waadi'ee (rahimahullaah) said:

"Beware of Abul-Hasan, I fear for the Dawah with regards to Abul Hasan." He (rahimahullaah) also said: "Abul Hasan is sly. He utilises cleverness and not what is from righteousness, purity and uprightness.."
[Source: Siyaanatus Salafi page: 533]

"Who said the origin with respect to them (Abul-Hasan, Muhammad Hassaan and Abu Ishaaq Al-Huwaynee) is that they are Salafi?! Rather the origin is that they are Ikhwaanees, with the nurturing of al-Ikhwaan."
[Source: Source: Siyaanatus-Salafi, p.534]

Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee (may Allaah preserve him) said:

"Many of our Salafi brothers are aware of the condition of this man. Rather now we see him with all of the Jama'aat al-Hizbiyyah (the innovated partisan groups). And he has statements from that which has been recorded from him in tapes. These affairs he used to forbid yesterday, and today you find him speaking with it! We ask Allaah for wellbeing and safety."
"We warn against this man from every place because he is Ikhwaanee in Manhaj."
Until the Shaikh said: "I know him, he does not feel ashamed of telling lies."
[Source: Source: Siyaanatus-Salafi, p.535]

This is in reality the Manhaj of Abu Usamah - The Same as al-Ma'rabee.

We see him now also with the Jama'aat al-Hizbiyyah - aiding them, supporting them, whilst claiming to be Salafi, same as Abul-Hasan - we are not interested in mere claims - our da'wah is knowledge and action, and adhering to the usool.

Not ashamed of telling lies and deceiving the youth, same as Abul-Hasan.

Abul-Hasan belittles the Sahaabah, calls them "scum" and having "evil suspicions", then denies it and makes excuses for his evil. Abu Usaamah does the same: he accused the Companion Waleed bin 'Uqbah of being a Faasiq (rebellious sinner), and then claimed he didn't know Waleed to be a Sahaabee - until one listens to the audio in which Abu Usamah affirms that he is a Companion just before calling him a "Faasiq" (click here for the proof and sound clips). He belittled and demeaned Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (radhi Allaah 'anhu) and then asks the youth sitting in front of him to believe his sincerity.

Abul-Hasan praises the innovators and regards them to be from ahlus-Sunnah and Salafi, Abu Usamah does the same.

Abul-Hasan accuses Shaikh Rabee' of being sick and foolish, Abu Usamah claims that he's seen things in Shaikh Rabee' that prevent him from taking his refutations. But who cares since he is happy to make Abu Bakr (radiallaahu anhu) as an example to be made of Abu Usamah's principle of not taking from the Scholars because of what he has seen from them.So who's Shaikh Rabee compared to Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (radhi Allaahu 'anhu)?

These two individuals are different sides of the same coin (except that Abul-Hasan actually seems to be an educated innovator, whereas Abu Usamah is an outright fool).

Al-Allaamah Ubaid Al-Jaabiree (may Allaah preserve him) said:

"This man is an Ikhwaanee, a trickster, a plotter, an infiltrator into the da'wah of Ahlus-Sunnah in Yemen."
[Source: Siyaanatus-Salafi, p. 534]

Abu Usamah on several occasions has mentioned and belittled this Scholar of the Sunnah - Abu Usamah's hatred of the Scholars who oppose his corrupt Manhaj is palpable. Alhamdulillaah, Shaikh Ubaid clarified like the Sun in the sky his statement regarding Ka'b bin Maalik (radhi Allaahu 'anhu) without any difficulty. (Listen to it here)

We have documented proofs showing the innovations and deviations of al-Ma'rabee (click here for a sample!), can Abu Usamah provide us with his responses to these documented evidences? Or does he have the statements and responses of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin to these documented evidences? Answer: No. Why? Because Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin (hafidhaullaah) has no documented responses to the specific proofs against Abul-Hasan!

So has Abu Usamah changed over the last decade? No. Same lies, different audience. The question that arises is, who is really the blind-follower?And how is it that a new generation of youth are falling for his recycled lies. When a scholar praises a person, then he praises him upon his knowledge and adherence to the Sunnah, from what he knows of him. And when that scholar passes away, and that one praised becomes a Mu'tazilee or a Shi'ite? Does that tazkiyyah still hold true or is it nullified? Of course it is nullified. Imaam Muslim stated in the beginning of his Saheeh:

It was narrated that Mis'ar said: Jaabir bin Yazeed narrated to us, but that was before he innovated [into the Religion] that which he innovated. (no. 52)

This shows how the Salaf would give each person his true right but once they saw innovation in a person, they would also make that clear. And this has occurred throughout the centuries. A more potent example perhaps is Ya'qoob bin Shaibah as-Sadoosee.

Ya'qoob bin Shaibah (died 262H) was present in the time of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241H). The great Imaam adh-Dhahabee (d. 748H, rahimahullaah) stated in Siyar A'laam an-Nubalaa about him: "The great haafidh, al-'Allaamah, ath-thiqah (trustworthy)." Then he goes on to say that he had authored a huge Musnad in hadeeth spanning 30 volumes. Ahmad bin Kaamil al-Qaadee said: "Ya'qoob bin Shaibah was from the major companions of Ahmad bin al-Mu'adhdhal and al-Haarith bin Miskeen - was was a leading Faqeeh - but he withheld in the issue of the Qur'aan (by refusing to say, 'it is not created')." Imaam adh-Dhahabee (rahimahullaah):

"I say: He took his position of withholding in the Qur'aan from his Shaikh, the well-known Ahmad previously mentioned (i.e. bin al-Mu'adhdhal) - and likewise those who also withheld were Mus'ab az-Zubairee, Ishaaq bin Abee Israa'eel and a group - so nearly a thousand Imaams opposed them! Rather all the rest of the Imaams of the Salaf as well as the later Imaams upon the issue of them not rejecting that the Qur'aan is created, and their refusal to declare the Jahmiyyah to be unbelievers! We ask Allaah for safety in our Religion."

Abu Bakr al-Marroodhee (rahimahullaah) said:

"Ya'qoob bin Shaibah made apparent his withholding in a part of Baghdaad - so Abu Abdillaah (Ahmad bin Hanbal) warned against him. And when [the Khaleefah] al-Mutawakkil commanded Abdur-Rahmaan bin Yahyah bin Khaaqaan to ask Ahmad bin Hanbal regarding who should be appointed as judges, Abdur-Rahmaan said: I asked Ahmad [bin Hanbal] regarding Ya'qoob bin Shaibah, so he said: 'He is an innovator, a person of desires!'" Al-Khateeb said: "He described him as such due to him withholding."

So this is how the Salaf would deal with a person, even if he had knowledge, who stubbornly persisted upon innovations. Shaikh Rabee' (hafidhahullaah), the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel of our age said:

"The Salaf, do you people know their Manhaj? I will give an example of an Imaam from the Imaams of Sunnah: Ya'qoob bin Shaibah, the author of the Musnad, the likes of which has not been authored as Imaam adh-Dhahabee (rahimahullaah) and others have born witness to. But this man fell into bid'ah, and because of that he amounts to nothing with us."
(Audio title: Guidelines to the Students in the Department of Hadeeth, Q&A Section).

So due to the ignorance of Abu Usamah, or the pretence of ignorance, and the wilful deception he has employed, he spouts the same ignorant statements he was uttering ten years ago. We ask him, is your beloved Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee greater in knowledge than Ya'qoob bin Shaibah that was abandoned by a thousand Imaams for his bid'ah!? (Or are you waiting for a thousand Imaams to refute him?!). Does the praise of anyone amount to anything with respect to this innovator, even if he wrote 30 volumes in hadeeth?! Or will you now say, these words of Shaikh Rabee' constitute a tazkiyyah because he mentioned some incidental historical facts about Ya'qoob bin Shaibah? Will you now say that this speech of Shaikh Rabee' amounts to al-Mawaazanah!?

Ponder O Salafi, read again what we have narrated above, and you can clearly see that a man who has knowledge and is praised by many can then fall into innovations, persist upon them and be declared an innovator. Then the late-comers who are informed of the affairs cannot use "difference of opinion between the scholars" as an excuse to make taqleed in affairs of usool and fundamentals! The fact of matter is that Abu Usamah is treacherous and a liar, who a decade later continues to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting Muslim youth who have not studied and know no better.

Amazing how many of these youth abandoned the blind following of the great Imaams to be led into another type of blind-following by Abu Usamah! Can you not, O Sunni brother and sister, see parallels between the stances of the Salaf towards those who were once upon the Sunnah, indeed great Imaams of the Sunnah, and then they were refuted and abandoned? Is this not the case with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee, Muhammad al-Maghraawee and others (except that the likes of Ya'qoob bin Shaibah were immensely more knowledgeable than these innovators of today)? So even if we find a bonafide Scholar in that time, who may have been unaware of the state of Ya'qoob bin Shaibah, and called the people to sit with him and praised him, does that now give the ignoramus (like Abu Usamah) the right to pick and choose? Or have we been commanded with clinging to the proofs. Once we enter into praising and recommending innovators and promoting them, then we fall into guiding the youth towards them, the youth cannot discern between haqq and baatil, so they are led astray - and this is the case with many who have fallen into the snare of Abu Usamah.

So the position of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin (hafidhullaah) is not a proof to call others to blind-follow. Rather when Allaah, the Most High, states: "Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." then who knows in detail the innovations with proofs of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee? And before him Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq? And after him Ali Hasan al-Halabee? Is it Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin or Shaikh Rabee'? So let Abu Usamah tell us, if he has the ability to be honest? There is no doubt that the knowledge of this affair is with Shaikh Rabee' over Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin. And we'll come to explain why below inshaa'Allaah.

Abu Usaamah is not interested in following the path of the Salaf in seeking out proofs and evidences, and taking the stances that the Salaf of this Ummah took. This is his weakness in Manhaj, weakness in 'Aqeedah and weakness in implementing the path of the Salaf. It is he who in reality is upon a modernist methodology that blurs the demarkation between truth and falsehood, between Sunnah and bid'ah and between ahlus-Sunnah and Ahlul-Bid'ah. Shaikh Rabee' (hafidhahullaah) warns from this state of mind, he continues:

"However [in these times] due to our weakness and the degradation of Islaam, it's 'Aqeedah, it's Sharee'ah and its signs at the hands of many people - those who are negligent regarding the status of the Sunnah and they hover around the innovations and it's people.. How many are there in these times leading the Ummah with misguidance, yet we still say about them that they are from Ahlu-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah!!

These are the Satanic wicked scales! Rather measure with the scales of Islaam, the scales that Imaam Ahmad and his brothers from the Imaams of hadeeth measured with, that the Imaams of Sunnah measured with, and what ash-Shaafi'ee understood!

When ash-Shaafi'ee debated with Hafs al-Farad in the issue of the creation of the Qur'aan, he said to ash-Shaafi'ee: 'The Qur'aan is created' Shaafi'ee replied: 'You have disbelieved in Allaah!' And we have in our midsts those who say: 'The Qur'aan is created', even if is by concealed speech (i.e. dressed up with other words). The Ash'arees say that the Qur'aan is created - this is happening in front of us - their position is that it is created. So how can we say that they are not innovators?!

So this is the scale used to measure, and this scale never changes. This is the scale of Allaah, just and true, that Allaah revealed upon Muhammad ('alaihi salaatu was-salaam), and the understanding of the Righteous Salaf, and the people of Tawheed and Sunnah - they implement these scales upon the people of bid'ah and other than them - this measure never changes.."
(Audio title: Guidelines to the Students in the Department of Hadeeth, Q&A Section).

Abu Usaamah shows his treachery in the issue of al-Ma'rabee and Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin

Over the years, lying, arrogance, stubbornness and a wilful desire to oppose the haqq have become the hallmarks of Abu Usamah's character. As much as people and Scholars have tried to advise, counsel and help this individual, he just will not relent! There is a clear underlying disorder, and it has to be psychological and pathological. It has been said: "The symptoms of a Narcissistic personality disorder comprise an elevated sense of self-worth leading an individual to value himself as inherently better than others but at the same time having a fragile self-esteem which cannot handle criticism. These types of people will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. But more than this, Abu Usamah is also arrogant, and also ignorant of the principles of Salafiyyah. What a sick combination of affairs.

A man who makes blunders of the likes of Abu Usamah's, should never be given the microphone - he is always an accident waiting to happen. Ignorant young brothers are fooled by his coarse street-speak and think he's "cool". They don't know the 'Aqeedah nor the Manhaj so cannot distinguish a fool from a scholar, but a student of knowledge sees through him, alhamdulillaah. He sits in a small back street Mosque with no more than a handful of youths in front of him - his speech is filled with bitterness and personal attacks - he makes hate-filled videos, and then broadcasts it on the net. At the same time he lies out of his back teeth, "This is not a refutation, this is not a clarification..."

But instead of us getting side-tracked by his attacks upon those who refuted his innovations, let us stick to the original issue with Abu Usamah:

Question to Allaamah Ahmad an-Najmee: "O Shaykh Ahmad we have with us in America a man called Abu Usaamah who is considered to be from the Du'aat, he aids and supports Abul-Hasan and he calls some noble Salafi brothers ghulaat (extremists), muqallidah (blind followers),and muhqiboon (the people whose religion is the religion of the one they blindly follow), so what is the legislated position from this man and how should we deal with him?

The noble Scholar (rahimahullaah) answered:

موقفكم منه كموقفكم من أهل البدعة , أعرض عنه و اتركه

"Your position with him is the same as your position with the People of Innovation. Turn away from him and abandon him.

When Abu Usaamah was abandoned, as all deviants pretending to have aql ought to be, it was only a short while later that he turned up on the shores and green pastures of Britain to play the field, just as he had been playing with communities in the US. This history and reality is hidden to many of those who are delighted to hear Abu Usamah malign those who adhere to and value the advice, direction and guidance of Scholars who advise with clinging to the Sunnah and abandoning innovation.

ACCUSATIONS OF TAQLEED WHILST MAKING TAQLEED!
SHAIKH ABDUL-MUHSIN & SHAIKH RABEE' BIN HAADEE
Using the General Praise of a Scholar in the Presence of Detailed Disparagements Of Many Others Is Not A Proof in the Religion.

From the examples from the Salaf which have preceded in this thread, in the post above, anyone with basic studies in the Manhaj can see that the praise of scholar does not take precedence over disparagement based upon detailed, established evidences. Conversely, we affirm the principle that a general and vague criticism of a well-known Salafi, who is known for his Salafiyyah is not accepted except with detailed evidences (i.e. citations of words, statements, actions) showing his deviation.

Abu Usamah opposes both of these Salafi principles over and over again in his rants. On the one hand he rejects the detailed evidences for the disparagement of many Scholars against innovators like al-Ma'ribee, using all sorts of childish rants and games, and on the other hand he makes use of the speech of Shaikhs: Wasi'ullaah, al-Hajooree and ar-Radaadee against Salafi Publications which comprise nothing more than allegations without any actual evidence. Furthermore, he fails in his treachery to mention that both al-Hajooree and ar-Radaadee have previously declared Green Lane to be hizbees! - more on that in a later article, inshaa'Allaah.

As for the point concerning Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad, hafidhahullaah and his stance concerning Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee and likewise the more detailed and evidence-based stance of Shaikh Rabee' bin Haadee al-Madkhalee (hafidhahullaah), and numerous other Scholars (from Madinah, Kuwait and Yemen), then the following important comments can be made as well as important principles established:

1. Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin is a scholar of the Sunnah and Salafiyyah. An individual who has strived for many years teaching the Sunnah of our Messenger, 'alayhi salaatu was-salaam, to the Ummah. We make du'aa for him and speak good of him as do the rest of the Scholars. But a scholar's opinion is accepted only if it agrees with the truth, and if it opposes the evidences then we do not accept it. Abu Usamah, in contradiction to this, follows what his desires agree with and rejects that which his desires don't agree with - proofs, evidences, usool and 'aqeedah are of little importance to this person of desires.

2. We recognise that that there is no individual in this Ummah, other than the Messenger of Allaah, 'alayhi salaatu was-salaam, that can encompass every aspect of completion in every field of knowledge that Allaah has revealed. Bearing this in mind, any individual can err. The less knowledge you have of the legislation, the more you err. The more Shar'ee knowledge you have, the less you err. The Messenger of Allaah, 'alayhi salaatu was-salaam, mentioned in a hadeeth,

"Idhaa hakama Haakimu, fajtahada, fa asaaba falahu ajraan. Wa idha hakama fa akhta'a, falahu ajrun waahid" - meaning – "When a judge makes a judgement and he makes ijtihaad and he is correct, he gets two rewards. And if he judges and is incorrect, he receives a single reward" (Hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah reported by Bukhaaree and Muslim).

And this reward is for the 'ulamah of Ahlus-Sunnah. So if Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin is correct, for him there is two rewards, if he is incorrect, for him there is one reward (inshaa'Allaah), and the same for Shaikh Rabee' bin Haadee.

But the one who follows the errors of the scholars after knowing the truth, then he is sinful. Just the Ash'aree taking the ta'weel of Ibn Hajr and an-Nawawee (in certain issues of the Attributes of Allaah), or following Abu Haneefah in the issue of eemaan, after the error of that has been made abundantly and sufficiently clear.

So if one knows the truth of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and his innovations, and Abul-Hasan and his innovations and Ihyaa Turaath and their innovations (all of which are the innovations of Ikhwaan brought to a Salafi audience in deceptive ways) and knows the knowledge-based refutations, then he is a sinful in persisting upon supporting them and aiding them, because Allaah has stated, "And do not aid one another upon sin and transgression" and the Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) said: "The curse of Allaah is upon the one who innovates and the one who accommodates the innovator." Worst still is this ignoramus Abu Usamah who continues to defend people of innovation after knowing the truth, because he just cannot keep his mouth shut about those his heart inclines towards - even if it means twisting the clear refutations of Allaamah al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) against Turaath and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and convincing the youth sitting in front of him that they are tazkiyaat!

How dare this Khadhdhaab Abu Usamah use the example of Ibraaheem bin Abee Yahyah (the Jahmee, Mu'tazilee, Raafidee) to support his false position and his corrupted usool - he lied and deceived the audience concerning the position of Imaam ash-Shaaf'ee (d. 204H) towards Ibraaheem bin Abee Yahyah and tried to use it to defend the corruption of his beloved Turaathee Adnaan Abdul-Qaadir! We will expose this deception in the next post inshaa'Allaah.

3. Abu Usamah is in essence saying, "I will follow the praise of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin regardless of evidences and proofs" because he is a great Scholar, and this great scholar cannot be wrong! The Salaf have refuted this doubt which basically states, "Every mujtahid is correct" (Kullu mujtahid museeb) and that whichever opinion you follow it's fine. The Qaadi Abu Tayyib At-Tabaree said:

"[As for the statement], 'every mujtahid is correct', then this is Madhhab of the Mu'tazilah of Basrah, and they are the root of this bid'ah." (see Bahrul-Muheet 6/243)

And this is the trait you see from Abu Usamah in his blind following of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin, whilst ignoring the mountain of evidence stacked against Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee. It is as if he is saying Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin cannot err, or that I will follow him right or wrong, or regardless because he is a Mujtahid and "every mujtahid is correct" (or more correctly: "this mujtahid agrees with my desires"), following the Madhhab of the Mu'tazilah in that. However, he doesn't apply the same principle to the likes of Shaikh Rabee', or Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Ahmad an-Najmee, Shaikh Muqbil, Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee and so on. So he is a muqallid whose buffoonery seems to impress a few youths because he sprinkles it with verses and ahaadeeth (which he applies in his own way) and his own flowery speech. So don't be deceived O youth.

4. Abu Usamah tries to capitalise on the fact that the Scholars differ with respect to rulings upon the innovators, so he (in essence is telling the audience) one may pick and choose whom to follow. But the differing that occurs between the Scholars is not a proof in the Religion - rather it is the evidences that bind us to the truth, not the differences of opinion. This is the case even with the Sahaabah (radhi Allaahu 'annum).

"There is not in the differing of the Sahaabah an allowance/excuse (for others). Indeed there is only that which is wrong or right"(Jaami' Bayaanil-'Ilm wal-Fadlihi). And we have been ordered with that which is right and correct. And this is in agreement with the statement of Ibn Abbaas, radhi Allaahu 'anhu, who said: "I say: 'The Messenger said' and you say: '[But] Abu Bakr and Umar said'!"

So Manhaj al-Khabeeth that Abu Usamah is propagating is clearly false. So the truth is one, either you know about Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee or your don't. If you don't know, ask those who do, rather ask those who know him best! And Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin (hafidhahullaah) clearly does not know him with the detail that Shaikh Rabee', Shaikh Ahmad an-Najmee, Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee and Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree know him. Books have written about this man's innovations: This is just one book of 256 pages, written by the noble Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree (hafidhahullaah) in refutation of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee (which he presented as a gift to al-Maktabah as-Salafiyyah in 1425H):

It is NOT permitted in our Religion to put general praise over specific detailed criticism, because that is the path of the ignorant blind-follower and it opposes the principles of the Religion. So, Abaa Usaamah, stop teaching falsehood to the youth - you are misguiding them towards those whom the Scholars have disparaged by your activities and lunatic rants. And O youth, who listen to this buffoon who sits there making you giggle, give value to your Religion, don't follow him into misguidance and deviation. Allaah will call you to account!

5. Differing of the scholars in any affair is not a proof. Al-Haafidh Abu 'Umar Ibn Abdil-Barr said:

"Difference of opinion is not a proof with a single one of the Fuqahaa (Jurists and Scholars) of the Ummah, except for the one who has no insight and possesses no knowledge - and he has no proof for his speech."(Jaami' Bayaanil-'Ilm).

Abu Usamah openly calls people to this slogan, "my brothers the scholars differ, the scholars differ" and then he blindly follows whichever opinion suits his desires, even if it opposes the usool. So the Scholar is excused in his ijtihaad, but the miskeen follower (Abu Usamah) who persists upon falsehood (even after the truth is clarified to him) has no excuse for misguidance and misguiding others. The reader by this stage should be able to see why our scholars regard this treacherous kadhdhaab to be person of bid'ah and misguidance and why he should be abandoned by all and sundry.

As for the praise of Shaikh Wasi'ullaah for Abu Usamah, then it carries no weight in light of the proofs against Abu Usamah (and it is not hard to imagine how this man may have deceived the shaikh with lies and half-truths) - just as the praises of Shaikh Wasi'ullaah for Suhaib Hasan, Abdul-Haadee (of Green Lane) and Ihyaa Turaath carry no weight in light of the proofs that are evident and apparent. So, in reality, we are not blind-followers - the scholars who have refuted these people have done so upon evidences, clear and apparent. And if the truth be told, as Shaikh Ubaid, Shaikh Muhammad bin Haadee, Shaikh Falaah Ismaa'eel, Shaikh Ahmad as-Subay'ee, Shaikh Muhammad al-Anjaree, Shaikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree (and others) have all stated that Shaikh Wasi'ullaah's disparaging statements against al-Maktabah as-Salafiyyah - and Abu Khadeejah and Abu Hakeem (click here to read) are based on his emotional attachment to Suhaib Hasan and Green Lane Mosque (formerly Markaz Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith UK). Further, the Shaikh has only brought vague general criticisms lacking any direct evidence - so we excuse the Shaikh and ask Allaah to grant success.

So after this, where is this elusive Jarh Mufassar, O Abaa Usaamah? Where is the proof? Where are our innovations and deviations? We have shown the Ummah your bid'ah and the mubtadi'ah you are defending, allying with and for whose sake you are loving and hating, but all you have done is shown your ignorance of the Salafi usool, your contradiction and following your desires. Mere accusations shrouded in buffoonery and street-speak is not evidence of deviation in usool, aqeedah and manhaj.

6. Even if a Scholar Errs, then clarifying the errors is an obligation. Al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab, rahimahullaah, said:

"And from the headings of sincere advice to Allaah, the Most High, and His Book and His Messenger – and this is particular to the Scholars – to refute the deviations from the Book and Sunnah... And likewise to refute the weak statements from the slips of the scholars and to make clear the proofs of the Book and Sunnah." (Jaami' ul-'Uloom wal-Hikam, abridged)

A Salafi does not use the slips or mistakes of the Scholars to validate his own futile positions. Umar bin al-Khattaab (radhi Allaahu anhu) stated:

"There are three things that demolish the Religion: 1. the mistaken slip of the Scholar, 2. the argumentation of the munaafiq by utilising the Qur'aan, and 3. the Imaams of misguidance."
(Reported by ad-Daarimee, al-Laalikaa'ee and others)

So when a scholar errs, then his error cannot be followed and used as proof to fight against that which clear and apparent from the proofs, let alone that one should say: "If you criticise me, then you are criticising the scholar, because he took that position and I follow him." Understanding the statements of the scholars and differing that occurs between them is a broader topic that has been covered elsewhere. (You can read it here)

Anyone who looks at the proofs against Abul-Hasan, Ali Hasan, al-Maghraawee, Ihyaa Turaath, Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, and before them (from the early times) Ya'qoob bin Shaibah and al-Karabeesee - and from those in the West like Shadeed Muhammad, Abu Muslimah, Suhaib Hasan, etc., and then still takes the opinion of the one who has slipped in his ijtihaad, then he is either ignorant or a follower of desires like them. This is even more so with respect to Abu Usamah, since Shaikh Rabee' (hafidhahullaah) himself sat with Abu Usamah, but the only thing this kadhdhaab could say afterwards was: "I saw things from Shaikh Rabee' that prevent me from taking everything he has to say in this affair!" So what did you see, O miskeen! that you prevents you from taking the refutations of this Imaam?! Are we to believe your rant over and above what the Great Mujadideen (Revivers) of the era have said about Shaikh Rabee' (we'll bring these sayings in a follow-up post inshaa'Allaah)? But maybe we shouldn't be so offended, especially since recently Abu Usamah made the noble Companion Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (radhi Allaahu 'anhu) as an illustrative example for this very same remark he made about Shaikh Rabee' and before that he called the Companion Waleed bin 'Uqbah (radhi Allaahu 'anhu) a faasiq and then blatantly denied having knowledge of his status as a Companion!

7. Abu Usaamah: Look at the Manhaj you are Following? The Murji'ah, The Philosophers and The Soofees!

Excusing deviation and bid'ah is not an option if one knows the truth. Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) said:

"And another group, [then] they do not know the 'Aqeedah of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah as is obligated, or they know a part of it and are ignorant regarding a part of it – and that which they know, they conceal and do not explain it to the people – and they do not forbid the bid'ah and they do not censure Ahlul-Bid'ah nor punish or subdue them. Rather they may even have disparaging remarks with respect to the Sunnah and the foundations of the Deen – not distinguishing between the speech of Ahlus-Sunnah and that of Ahlul-Bid'ah wal-Furqah – Or they accept the different madhhabs of bid'ah just as the 'ulemah excuse each other in the issues of ijtihaad in which there is [genuine] difference. And this is the condition of many of the Murji'ah, and some of the Thinkers, the Soofees and the Philosophers" (Majmoo' al-Fataawa Vol 12, slightly abridged).

Wallaahi! O Sunni! O one with eyes and hearts open to the truth! You know (O Salafi) that this is the reality of Abu Usamah in the words of Shaikhul-Islaam! Abu Usamah is one who:

hides the truth deliberately and knowingly,

attacks ahlus-Sunnah and their Scholars,

shows love and affection for ahlul-bid'ah, accommodates them and aids them,

he makes no distinction between haq and baatil,

with him truth becomes falsehood and falsehood becomes the truth,

he accepts the differing madhhabs of bid'ah as if they were matters of differing in ijtihaad!

As can be seen, that if a person knows the reality of an issue, then he is not excused thereafter in supporting that which is opposition to the Sunnah after the matter is made clear from the texts of the Book and Sunnah upon the Manhaj of the Salaf. As for the one who does not know, then he is informed so that he takes the correct position against those who oppose Ahlus-Sunnah and its principles and fundamentals, just as Allaah has stated, "Ask the people of knowledge, if you do not know." Again, we repeat, you ask those who are the most knowledgeable of the details of the affair. Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin (hafidhahullaah) is NOT the most knowledgeable concerning Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee (or Ihyaa Turaath)! Abu Usaamah is treacherous and wicked because he knows this fact, but he still peddles his falsehood, plays with the deen and the 'aql of others and misguides them.

Further, it is not upon us to start questioning the Jarh Mufassar (detailed refatations) of the Scholars due to the apparent silence of another! This is because the principle 'the detailed jarh takes precedence over the ta'deel' stands firm throughout time due to the fact that the one who brings this jarh mufassar (in this case Al-Allaamah Rabee' bin Haadee, Ahmad an-Najmee, Zayd al-Madkhalee, Muhammad bin Haadee, Ubayd Al-Jaabiree, Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree and so on) is more knowledgeable of the affair of an individual (in this case Al-Ma'rabee) than the one who just brings a general ta'deel (praise). And the one who has knowledge is a proof over the one who does not know. Another principle for you to grasp O Abaa Usamah!

One should not feel confused or disillusioned due to not finding ijmaa' (consensus) in the jarh of an individual. Since ijmaa' is not a pre-condition for accepting a jarh. Rather the guiding factor is the bringing forth of a detailed refutation, clear and detailed by one who is capable and this takes precedence over the ta'deel mujmal (general praise). And of-course those scholars who have refuted Abul-Hasan are from the experts in the field of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel – and they have written to-date thousands of pages upon this innovator Abul-Hasan Al-Misree. Yet not one of the scholars, whom the supporters of Abul-Hasan try to rally around has brought a single detailed reply to the many, many refutations upon Abul-Hasan. Challenge this, Abaa Usaamah, if you are indeed truthful, and defend your companion in bid'ah!

So we say, that Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin, hafidhahullaah, is as Shaykh Rabee' himself stated: "Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin is not more knowledgeable about Abul-Hasan than Shaykh Rabee'."

Alongside this we know that Al-Allaamah Rabee' is the Imaam of al-Jarh wa Ta'deel in our time as stated by Shaykhul-Islaam Al-Albaanee, rahimahullaah - and is more knowledgeable that Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin in this field, though Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin is an 'Aalim. So he is the expert in this field recommended by another expert in the field. Shaikh Muqbil (rahimahullaah) said that Shaykh Rabee' is a sign from the signs of Allaah in uncovering the Hizbiyyeen!

So we do not need to look into, nor are we obligated to know why Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin, hafidhahullaah, does not make tabdee' upon Abul-Hasan (i.e. declare him to be an innovator), since we have what is sufficient by way of exposition and refutation from the other scholars upon Abul-Fitan Al-Ma'rabee. Sufficient is it that a scholar is rewarded a single reward if he is erroneous in a particular matter. So we give him that with which we are obligated, respect and honour – we do not speak ill of him – no more than we would about any of the 'ulemaa of the Salaf who erred in a particular matter. Rather we make du'aa for them as we have been ordered by the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.

Abu Usamah's Treachery upon Salafiyyah

Abu Usamah is a caller to misguidance. He has corrupted the principles of the Sunnah and ascribed them to to the Salaf. He praises ahlul-Bid'ah and calls for others to tolerate the innovators - he utilises the well-known arguments of Ikhwaanees and the hizbees and utilises them against the Salafis. He claims that the likes of Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee would knowingly praise clear innovators, and other scholars would not criticise him (see Section D below for an exoneration of Imaam al-Shaafi'ee from this evil insinuation). He reaches a crescendo in his talk whereby he starts praising several deviants including Shadeed Muhammad and Bilal Philips. By this, he tries to convince his youthful audience that this is the Manhaj of ash-Shaafi'ee, and Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahumallaah) and the Manhaj of the Salaf.

"Your position with him is the same as your position with the People of Innovation. Turn away from him and abandon him.

By now the 'aaqil (intelligent) and sincere reader will have realised that Abu Usamah belongs to a band of callers who "have disparaging remarks with respect to the Sunnah and the foundations of the Deen – not distinguishing between the speech of Ahlus-Sunnah and that of Ahlul-Bid'ah wal-Furqah – Or they accept the different madhhabs of bid'ah just as the Scholars excuse each other in the issues of ijtihaad in which there is [genuine] difference. And this is the condition of many of the murji'ah, and some of the Thinkers, the Soofees and the Philosophers" (Majmoo' al-Fatawa, vol. 12). Anyone who analyses the speech of Abu Usamah can clearly see that this individual clearly falls into this trait mentioned by Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah).

Abu Usamah ath-Thahabi is a Caller to the Paths of Misguidance
He Uses General Statements of Praise for the Mubtadi'ah whilst Ignoring Precise Evidences

Abu Usamah said:

"...WHAT I STILL BELIEVE TODAY and all praise is for Allaah, that Abul-Hasan IS SALAFI and that the MAJOR SCHOLARS of this era, Imaam al-Albaanee and Imaam Ibn Baaz and Imaam Ibn 'Uthaimeen and Shaikh Muqbil (may Allah have mercy upon them) they all died while being pleased with him.." (Ref: Salafitalk, 2003)

Ahlus-Sunnah praise an individual when he is upon the truth, calling to it and defending it from innovations and misguidance. And if that person, no matter how great he may be, deviates from the truth, and persists upon deviation and misguidance after the truth has been conveyed to him, then ahlus-Sunnah disparage him and warn the Ummah from his misguidance. This is not something strange, any 'aaqil understands this. Even Iblees was once in the company of the noble Angels, and he was from those whom Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, commanded to bow down to Aadam (alaihi salaam), and when he refused and became arrogant, then Allaah, the One free of all imperfection, rebuked him, and warned every nation from this avowed enemy!

And there many of examples, past and present where a scholar may praise a person, and then dispraise him when he sees from him corruption in the Deen - Is that too hard for Abu Usamah to understand? Just to give another clear example from the Salaf: Al-Marwazee (rahimahullaah), from the great Scholars and companions of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullaah) said:

'I departed to go see Al-Karabeesee, at the time when he was of good standing, for he used to defend the Sunnah and demonstrate support for Abu 'Abdillaah (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal).

So I said to him: 'Indeed, the people wish to present this book Al-Mudalliseen to Abu 'Abdillaah (Ahmad bin Hanbal). So it is best that you regret what you wrote or I will inform Abu 'Abdillaah.'

So he said to me: 'Indeed, Abu 'Abdillaah is a righteous man, a man of his status has been granted the ability to attain the truth. And I am very pleased that my book will be presented to him. Abu Thawr, Ibn 'Aqeel and Hubaish have already asked me to destroy this book, but I refused and said to them: Rather, I will intensify my promotion of it!'

So he persisted in that and he refused to go back on what he wrote in it. So I brought the book to Abu 'Abdillaah (Imaam Ahmad), while he was unaware of who authored it. And in the book, there was disparaging of Al-A'mash and support in favour of al-Hasan Ibn Saalih. And there was written in it: 'If you say that Al-Hasan Ibn Saalih took the views of the Khawaarij, then this Ibnuz-Zubair is truly the one who has accepted the views of the Khawaarij!'

So when it was read to Abu 'Abdillaah Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullaah), he said: 'This book compiles, for those who oppose (the Sunnah), that which they are not able to use as substantial proof. Warn others about this book!' And he renounced it.'" Sharh 'Ilal-ut-Tirmidhee (2/806-808)

Can you see, O Salafi, O one with 'aql, how this al-Karabeesee used to be a man of good standing with the Scholars, then he deviated, so he was warned against, so much so that it is narrated: Abu Ahmad bin 'Adee said: I heard Muhammad bin 'Abdillaah as-Sairafee ash-Shaafi'ee saying to them, i.e. to his students:

"Take a lesson from these two: Husayn al-Karabeesee and Abu Thawr. The knowledge of Abu Thawr was not even a tenth of Husayn in his knowledge and memorisation - Yet [Imaam] Ahmad spoke against him (i.e. al-Karabeesee) in the issue of the utterance of the Qur'aan (whether it is created or not), so he fell [in rank] - and he praised Abu Thawr [for his adherence to the Sunnah] so he rose [in rank]." Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi'yyeen of Ibn Katheer and Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi'iyyah al-Kubraa of al-Subki.

Can the truth be any clearer than this? On a slightly different note, these same traits of al-Karabeesee can be seen in Abu Usamah - Except that al-Karabeesee was a scholar and possessed knowledge, and we do not mean to belittle al-Karaabeesee in the slightest - alongside his deviation - by using him as an example for Abu Usamah! You can clearly see how a person who was considered to be a Scholar who would defend the Sunnah and the Scholars, then innovates and persists upon that, and he thus falls in the eyes of the People of Knowledge, so they refute him, oppose him - declare him to be deviated and misguided and warn the Ummah from, so much so that his works are considered worthless till the Hour is established. This description befits Abul-Hasan and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq (and others upon this path)!

Al-Karabeesee claimed to defend the Sunnah, same as Abu Usamah.

Al-Karabeesee professed support for the leading scholars like Imaam Ahmad whilst opposing their Manhaj, same as Abu Usamah,

Al-Karabeesee praised the innovators, criticised the Sahaabah and thought Imaam Ahmad (and the Scholars) would not take him to account, same delusion Abu Usamah has fallen into! He thinks he will not be called to account.

Al-Karabeesee was deceived by his own "self-worth" believing he had knowledge to offer, same as Abu Usamah,

Al-Karabeesee was rebuked by the Imaams and told to destroy his book that contains bid'ah, so instead, he started praising Imaam Ahmad thinking that he would accept his book. This is the same trick of Abu Usamah, when he doesn't like the opinion of one scholar (regardless of proofs), he moves on to another until he finds one who agrees with his desires, regardless of proofs!

Al-Karabeesee disparaged the Imaams of Sunnah and praised the people innovation, so Imaam Ahmad (bin Hanbal) rebuked him and eventually abandoned him and warned from him, as is reported in other narrations - likewise Imaam Ahmad (an-Najmee) with Abu Usamah.

So this is the Manhaj of Abu Usamah (the bid'ah is different, but the mindset is the same) - he sees the deviations of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and al-Ma'rabee as matters of mere tolerated ijtihaad, so we should not "import the problems for an example of shaikh fulaan against shaikh fulaan" (to quote Abu Usamah directly) and we should not "love and hate" based upon these differences as he states. Why? Because he sees these differences in 'aqeedah and manhaj issues as affairs that should not harm unity - and in essence, just like al-Ma'rabee and Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq he is upon the principle of Hasan al-Bannah: "Let us unite upon that which we agree and excuse each other in that which we disagree." - except of course when it come to his venomous attacks upon the Salafis "in Iraaq, in Palestine, in Europe, in the UK, in the USA and Canada" because he certainly gives them no excuse and no honour, he reserves that for the innovators! At an academic level criticises the beliefs of the extreme Shi'ah and the extreme Soofees etc (to remain in favour with masses), yet he praises his political masters and ideologues and the innovators his group associates with and continually invites (with sprinklings of a Salafi Shaikh here and there just to keep the facade of Salafiyyah apparent, in order to deceive the youth).

Another example of someone from the early times who was known for knowledge, piety and his tremendous contribution was Ya'qoob bin Shaibah (died 262H) - he was present in the time of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241H). The great Imaam adh-Dhahabee (d. 748H, rahimahullaah) stated in Siyar A'laam an-Nubalaa about him: "The great haafidh, al-'Allaamah, ath-thiqah (trustworthy)." Then he goes on to say that he had authored a huge Musnad in hadeeth spanning 30 volumes. Ahmad bin Kaamil al-Qaadee said: "Ya'qoob bin Shaibah was from the major companions of Ahmad bin al-Mu'adhdhal and al-Haarith bin Miskeen - was was a leading Faqeeh - but he withheld in the issue of the Qur'aan (by refusing to say, 'it is not created')." Imaam adh-Dhahabee (rahimahullaah):

"I say: He took his position of withholding in the Qur'aan from his Shaikh, the well-known Ahmad previously mentioned (i.e. bin al-Mu'adhdhal) - and likewise those who also withheld were Mus'ab az-Zubairee, Ishaaq bin Abee Israa'eel and a group - so nearly a thousand Imaams opposed them! Rather all the rest of the Imaams of the Salaf as well as the later Imaams upon the issue of them not rejecting that the Qur'aan is created, and their refusal to declare the Jahmiyyah to be unbelievers! We ask Allaah for safety in our Religion."

It is therefore the 'Aqeedah, the Usool, the Manhaj that unites our ranks - we love based upon it, and we hate those innovators who oppose it, as was the way of the Salaf. A man who was a "great Haafidh", an "Allaamah" who compiled 30 volumes in hadeeth - even if he opposes the usool, and persists upon that, then he is refuted and abandoned and warned from. He is not to be sat with, nor honoured or cooperated with.

From the Satanic deceptions of Abu Usamah, his half-truths and "information distortion" is his claim that Salafi Publications would praise a person, raise him and then criticise that very person after some time - and this somehow proves their "corrupted manhaj". The truth is that there are many individuals who were upon Salafiyyah and calling to Salafiyyah whom al-Maktabah as-Salafiyyah praised and regarded as Scholars, but then just like some of the innovators of old (e.. Ya'qoob bin Shaibah and al-Karabeesee), they deviated from the truth - the same scholars who praised them started to refute them - so we refute them. So let us now bring modern day examples:

Shaikh al-Albaanee praised Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, then he refuted him when his innovations became apparent.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz praised Safar al-Hawaalee and Salmaan al-Awdah and then when their bid'ah became clear he refuted them and called for them to be prevented from teaching. Same with Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen who initially praised them, then later, he warned from their revolutionary Marxist ideas.

Shaikh Muqbil bin Haadee praised 'Aqeel al-Maqtaree and then refuted him when his bid'ah and hizbiyyah became apparent. Shaikh Muqbil also praised Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee and towards the end of his life when al-Ma'rabee's treachery came to the surface, he cautioned against him.

Shaikh Rabee' bin Haadee would praise al-Ma'rabee, then when his bid'ah became apparent he refuted him, and likewise with Faalih al-Harbee and Ali Hasan and al-Maghraawee.

The Scholars would praise al-Maghraawee and al-Ar'oor until they turned to the path of al-Qutubiyyah.

And this is the method with Ahlus-Sunnah, to give a person his right, and raise him in accordance to his knowledge and adherence, and if he deviates, and persists upon his deviation, then he is boycotted and warned against. This is our stance with Suhaib Hasan, his son (self-proclaimed offspring of monkeys), and Abu Usamah - that there was a time when even these astray individuals were people we would cooperate with, but when they displayed their innovations and made open their praise for the innovators (the enemies of the Religion), and they cast to one side the proofs and evidences, and opposed the principles of the Sharee'ah, and they persisted upon that, the scholars warned against them. So al-'Allaamah Muqbil bin Haadee (rahimahullaah) warned from Suhaib Hasan in 1998; the proofs was established and evidences were clear - yet Abu Usamah continued his praise of him and reserved his venom for the Salafis (all around the world), why? Firstly, because Abu Usamah sees himself as a mujtihad, as a person who has the ability to decide these affairs. Secondly, because in actuality, he shares the same Bid'ee, Bannaawee principles of those he defends and praises and shares platforms with. And if there is one thing that these articles have proven then it is that this man is an ignoramus, treacherous deceiver who portrays himself as a person of knowledge, yet at every turn he is mistake waiting to happen! Look at the litany of destructive mistakes of this man:

belittlement of Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq by making him an illustrative example,

praise of Zakir Naik,

years of love and affection towards Jam'iyyah Ihyaa Turaath,

defence of al-Ma'rabee,

silence in the face of innovators who curse the Scholars,

sharing the stage with well-innovators and hizbees,

praise of those attack Shaikh Rabee' and praise Sayyid Qutb,

open attacks upon the Salafis worldwide (in Iraaq, Palestine, Europe, UK, USA and Canada) and accusing them of corruption in Manhaj.

All of these points are well-known and documented, alhamdulillaah. To defend him after this is to defend the indefensible. The praise of any Shaikh for Abu Usamah does not justify, or explain away this level of wickedness.

Who would trust their religion in his hands? A man who has to continually make tawbah for his disasters only to fall into them over and over again! How can he be trusted in his religion, in his knolwedge - and worse still who would put their Religion in his care? He may convince his followers of something one day in opposition to the 'aqeedah, and they defend it as if their life depended upon it, only to see him having to make yet another bayaan in clarification of his latest calamity!

Is that not exactly what took place with his comments with respect to the honour of the Caliph Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (radhi Allaahu 'anhu)?! Were his followers not convinced by him? Did he not tell the youth around him publicly that only a person person with "a sound and sincere heart" would accept and understand his speech concerning Abu Bakr (radhi Allaahu 'anhu)?! Did not these youth (on YouTube and in Green Lane) give him excuse after excuse, "you have to look see what the "shaikh" intended",and "he intended this and he intended that"? To the point that the blind-following ignorant innovating Deobandees had to tell you that Abu Usaamah had violated the honour of a Sahaabee! And those blinded by Abu Usamah still did not accept - this is true hizbiyyah - to defend your party-member, regardless of whether he is right or wrong. Yes, O youth, some of you were convinced because of you have allowed this man to deceive you. So let the deception stop here. Abandon this treacherous individual who possesses a clumsy tongue and a dull-wit that corrupts the da'wah and gives Islaam (let alone Salafiyyah) a bad name!

Abu Usamah Tainting The Reputation of Salafi Publications and the Scholars Because They Refute Those Who They Used To Praise

And we say without shame: It is true that the brothers at Salafi Publications, and the Salafis in general the world-over, used to take benefit from Ali Hasan al-Halabee, from Abul-Hasan al-Ma'rabee, from Faalih bin Naafi' al-Harbee, from Fawzee al-Bahrainee and others - ALL of whom were very-much praised and recommended by the major scholars at one stage. For example, Faalih al-Harbee was praised by Shaikh Ibn Baaz, Ali al-Halabee was praised by Shaikh al-Albanee, Fawzee al-Bahrainee was praised by Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen, al-Ma'rabee was praised by Shaikh Rabee', Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq was praised by Shaikh al-Albaanee. So we praised them in line with the scholars, and we abandoned them when there appeared in them deviation! But Abu Usamah has no concern for proofs and evidences - he supports whatever agrees with his hawaa (desires) - and he disparages whatever goes against his desires.

So the Manhaj of the Salafi is to hold fast to the truth - not like Abu Usamah who treats the Salafi Manhaj like a buffet bar for food: take what you want and leave what you do not want - he believes that the Salafi Manhaj accommodates the innovators and innovations, the likes of which were unheard of even in the times of the Salaf. Then he has the audacity to claim that al-Maktabah as-Salafiyyah are upon a "Salafiyyah Jadeedah" (a new-age innovated Salafiyyah). He is merely parroting here the speech of the Qutubees against the Salafi Ulamah, the likes of Abdur-Razzaaq ash-Shayijee, the student of Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq. So the Imaams of the Salaf would "love and hate" and make "allegiance and enmity" based upon the principles of Salafiyyah and they refuted those who opposed the 'Aqeedah and Manhaj of the Salaf. Shaikh-ul-Islaam Ibn Taimiyyah (died 728H) said:

"This is the reality of the statement of those from the Salaf and the people of knowledge that say: ‘Verily, the ones who called towards innovations are not to have their testimony accepted. Nor should they be followed in prayer. Nor should knowledge be taken from them. Nor should they be given women in marriage.’ This is their recompense, until they stop what they are doing. Due to this, it must be noted that there is a difference between one who calls towards innovations and one who doesn’t call to it (but yet is still an innovator). The one who calls to it, publicly displays his evil and thus it is necessary to punish him, as opposed to the one who conceals his innovation. Indeed, this latter one is only as evil as the hypocrites – those whom the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to accept their open proclamations (of Faith) and entrust their secret proclamations to Allaah, while possessing knowledge of the condition of most of them." Majmoo’ al-Fatawa (28/520)

The Salaf would not attend even the funerals of the innovators, let alone sit with them on public stages and praise them to their faces. They would not mix with them in life, nor honour them after death. Shaikh Zayd bin Muhammad bin Haadee al-Madkhalee (hafidhahullaah) stated:

When Bishr al-Mareesee died, not a single Sunni attended his janaazah - and this was alongside the fact that that the people of Sunnah were widespread in the land - except one man from Ahlus-Sunnah did attend, and he knew what Bishr al-Mareesee was upon from "Tajahhum", i.e. negation of the Names and Attributes, denial of the punishment of the grave, denial of the intercession on the Day of Resurrection - however he only attended the funeral to make du'aa against him, not to make du'aa for him! So when Bishr was placed in his grave, this Sunni supplicated:

"O Allaah! If this servant of your's denied the Punishment of the Grave, then let him taste the Punishment of the Grave the likes of which no one from existence has ever tasted!

So when the people supplicated, he likewise continued to supplicate:

"O Allaah! If this servant of your denied the Intercession of the Day of Resurrection, then do not permit any of your servants to intercede for him."

When he returned to his companions from Ahlus-Sunnah, they said to him, "You claim you are a person of Sunnah, yet you accompanied the funeral of Bishr?!" He responded, "Don't be hasty until I inform you [of what I did]."

So he informed them regarding what he had done and said - they believed him and laughed after initially being annoyed and angry with him.

So the origin with ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, the Salafis, is that they do not attend the gatherings of ahlul-Bid'ah, they do not praise them or honour them, or share platforms with them - and even if an Imaam of the Sunnah agrees to attend, then it is for the purpose of clarifying the truth and exposing their misguidance, as Shaikh al-Albaanee and others have stated, and this is, and this is the way of Shaikh Rabee'. So the Salaf were clear with regard to the ijmaa' concerning disassociation from ahlul-Bid'ah.

The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) also warned against the People of Innovation, from befriending, supporting or taking from them:

"Whoever innovates or accommodates an innovator then upon him is the curse of Allaah, His Angels and the whole of mankind." Reported by Bukhaaree (12/41) and Muslim (9/140)

The consensus of the abandonment of the people of innovation has been reported from a group of the Salaf - and whoever denies or rejects this ijmaa' is either ignorant or himself a person of innovation. Al-Fudayl bin 'Iyaad (d. 187H) said:

"I met the best of people, all of them people of the Sunnah and they used to forbid from accompanying the people of innovation." Reported by al-Laalikaa'ee (no.267)

Support of them is aiding in the destruction of Islaam. Ibraaheem bin Maysarah (d.132H) said:

"Whoever honours an innovator has aided in the destruction of Islam." Reported by al-Laalikaa'ee (1/139).

Or maybe Abu Usamah believes that the Salaf of this Ummah practised the art of "six-degrees of separation", because they too would judge a person based upon his associations. Al-Fudayl bin 'Iyaad (d. 187H) said:

"Whoever sits with a person of innovation, then beware of him and whoever sits with a person of innovation has not been given wisdom. I love that there was fort of iron between me and a person of innovation. That I eat with a Jew and a Christian is more beloved to me than that I eat with a person of innovation." Reported by al-Laalikaa'ee (no.1149)

Here al-Fudayl is NOT referring to the person of innovation or the caller, but merely one who sits with them - beware of him for indeed he has not been given wisdom, i.e. the criterion of the Sunnah. Furthermore when Abu Usamah directs people to the innovators and the jama'aat, he directs them to destruction and misguidance - he is misguided and he misguides others. Al-Fudayl bin 'Iyaad said:

"If a man comes to a person to consult him and he directs him to an innovator, then he has made a deception of Islaam. Beware of going to a person of innovation for they divert [people] from the truth." Sharh Usool ul-I'tiqaad of al-Laalikaa'ee (no.261)

Abu Usamah directs to the jama'aat of hizbiyyah and the people of innovation. The Salaf would not pass judgement upon a person until they had seen his companionship. Yahyaa bin Katheer said,

"Sulaimaan bin Daawood ('alaihis-salaam) said: Do no pass a judgement over anyone with anything until you see whom he befriends." Al-Ibaanah (2/464)

Moosaa bin Uqbah the Syrian approached Baghdad and this was mentioned to Imaam Ahmad. So he said,

"Look at whose residence he goes to and with whom he resides and finds shelter." Al-Ibaanah (2/480)

Imaam Al-Awzaa’ee said,

"Whoever hides his innovation from us will not be able to hide his companionship from us." Al-Ibaanah (2/476)

Al-A'mash (rahimahullaah) said,

"They (the Salaf) did not used to ask anything more about a person after having asked about three affairs: Who he walks with, who he enters upon (i.e. visits) and who he associates with amongst the people." Al-Ibaanah (2/478)

Abu Usamah is not able to hide his affections, his friends, his companions, he is likewise not able to hide his venom for the Salafis, so we say as Mu’aadh bin Mu’aadh (rahimahullaah) said to Yahyaa bin Sa’eed (rahimahullaah),

"O Abu Sa’eed! A person may hide his viewpoint from us, but he will not be able to hide that in his son, or his friend or in the one whom he sits with." Al-Ibaanah (2/437)

Ibn ‘Awn (rahimahullaah) said,

"Those who sit with the People of Innovation are more severe upon us than the People of Innovation themselves." Al-Ibaanah (2/273)

So these are scales that we use to judge with, these are the scales of the Salaf. Abu Usamah innovations are numerous, his treachery is tremendous, he has corrupted the principles of Salafiyyah and ascribed it to Salaf - his companionship, cooperation and praise of ahlul-bid'ah is not swept under the rug due to his splattering of praise of some of ahlus-Sunnah.

Next in Section (D), we will deal with Abu Usamah's false and fraudulent claim regarding ash-Shaafi'ee, inshaa'Allaah.

Listen to Abu Usaamah's claims regarding Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee here (from his lecture of so called "advice"):

And also later:

After listening to this deceitful speech of Abu Usaamah, a person who has not studied or someone who is not "switched-on" and does not take the time out to seek clarification or verification may be tricked into thinking that Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee (rahimahullaah) would cooperate with and praise the innovators, even if they were Raafidah Shi'ah, Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah! Furthermore the scholars would allow ash-Shaafi'ee to get on with his praise of the Mubtadi'ah (innovators) and not criticise him - and in essence condone the praise of the Mubtadi'ah. So why, therefore, should anyone criticise Abu Usamah, or Adnan Abdul-Qaadir for praising people who others see to be misguided? Why criticise Abu Usamah for sitting with them on platforms and remaining silent about their catastrophic innovations!?

Abu Usamah, and those upon his path, are more severe and more dangerous upon the Salafi da'wah than the innovators: Ibn 'Awn (rahimahullaah) said: "Those who sit with the People of Innovation are more severe upon us than the People of Innovation themselves." Al-Ibaanah (2/273). Meaning, those who sit with them, aid them, call others to benefit from them, praise them, or translate praises for them, recommend them, accommodate them - and support them against the Salafis. By Allaah, they are enemies of our da'wah, and the da'wah of the Salaf, even if they claim that they are upon the haqq and Salafiyyah! Their claim is a lie and rejected.

So here are the important questions at hand:

1. Did Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee (died 204H, rahimahullaah) praise an innovator?
2. Did the Salaf and the illustrious Imaams of the past narrate hadeeth from the innovators?
3. Is the acceptability of an innovator in a chain of narration of a hadeeth necessitate that we can take knowledge from the People of Bid'ah, praise them and direct people to them?
4. Is it possible that an Imaam of the Salaf and a Scholar of hadeeth would differ upon the trustworthiness of a narrator, whether he be from ahlus-Sunnah or ahlul-Bid'ah?

Please, dear reader, do not forget Abu Usamah's oft-repeated claim that the brothers at the Maktabah as-Salafiyyah are ignorant, and they haven't studied, they cannot recite the Book of Allaah, and they have a corrupted Manhaj - again all to blind the audience into thinking that he himself is the purveyor of insight and wisdom. The narcissist attacks those around him because "he has an elevated sense of self-worth leading an individual to value himself as inherently better than others but at the same time having a fragile self-esteem which cannot handle criticism" - so the trick is: "let me attack the knowledge-base of my critics and thus elevate my own standing in the eyes of the youth. Then I can fill their minds with whatever Manhaj I want."

Knowing The Principles Is A Protection From Misguidance

So before dealing with the position of ash-Shaafi'ee (rahimhullaah) towards Ibraheem bin Abee Yahyah, and thus expose yet another treacherous deviation from the Manhaj of Abu Usaamah that is rooted in both his ignorance of the usool and his diesire of opposition to the Salafi Manhaj, you should know that there are conditions that the Scholars of Hadeeth have laid down for the taking of the ahadeeth and narrations that were preserved by the people of bid'ah. So the immediate question that arises is:

Why would the Scholars accept the narrations of the innovators whilst collecting the authentic ahadeeth of the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam)?

Imaam adh-Dhahabee stated in al-Meezaan al-I'tidaal in his biography of Abaan bin Taghlab:

"Bid'ah is of two kinds: (1) The lesser bid'ah, like the extremism of at-Tashayyu' (giving precedence to 'Alee over 'Uthmaan without cursing any of the others - may Allaah be pleased with them all) or the Tashayyu' without going to extremes and without falsehood or misinterpretation, and this was the condition of many amongst the Taabi'een - alongside this [deviation] they were religious, pious and truthful. So if the narrations of these individuals were rejected, then a body of the Prophetic narrations would have been lost. And the [inherent] corruption of this is clear. (2) Then there is the greater bid'ah such as the complete Rafd (those shi'ah who curse the companions and declare them to be unbelievers and liars) and they are extreme in that - they attack Abu Bakr and Umar (radhi Allaahu 'anhumaa), and they call to that - then this group is not depended upon, and they have no honour!" He goes on to say: "Rather lying is their hallmark - deception and hypocrisy is their garment - so how is one to accept the narrations of one who's condition is such? Never and by no means!"

So the Salaf would look into the condition of the innovator, his bid'ah, whether he is caller to it or not, his trustworthiness, his truthfulness, the precision of his memory or his writing, and whether his narration revolves around his innovation. And if his narration revolved around his bid'ah, the Scholars of hadeeth would show great caution. Abu Haatim Ibn Hibbaan (died 354H, rahimahullaah) stated in Kitaab al-Majrooheen minal-Muhadditheen:

I heard Abdullaah bin Alee al-Jabbulee in Jabbul saying: I heard Muhammad bin Ahmad bin al-Junaid ad-Diqaaq saying: I heard Abdullaah bin Yazeed al-Muqree saying: That a man from ahlul-Bid'ah who recanted from his bid'ah said: "Investigate these hadeeth, from whom take them, for indeed if we took to an opinion we would invent a hadeeth to support it."

So the Muhadditheen, the Imaams of Hadeeth, the Imaams of the Salaf would judge the suitability of an innovator in narrating (and may consider him truthful) yet they would still criticise his innovation and warn from him. All this for the preservation of the Prophetic ahaadeeth, just as Abaan bin Taghlab (rahimahullaah) has mentioned above. One the great scholars of our time, Shaikh Zaid bin Muhammad al-Madkhalee (rahimahullaah) stated in al-Ajwibatul-Athariyyah (pp. 73-76):

"Some of the People of Knowledge made an exception [for ahlul-Bid'ah] in the arena of narrating - making it permissible to narrate from the innovator who was not a caller to his innovation, and would not narrate something that would give strength to his innovation. And connected to this is taking knowledge from an innovator who does not call to his innovation, and does not narrate anything that gives strength to his innovation - and that if the student of knowledge is in critical or dire need, and that the student of knowledge cannot find anyone from the righteous, pious Scholars, then he may take his knowledge [due to necessity and the absence of Scholars].

As for your question regarding ahlul-Bid'ah of these times, then from them are the people of blameworthy hizbiyyah, such as the Khawaarij for instance, then the stance towards them is [just] like the stance that was taken against the ahlul-Bid'ah of old or not? Then the answer is that the ruling upon the People of Desires is one and the same in every era and every place. And the position of ahlus-Sunnah towards them, likewise is one and the same even if some types of innovations are less in corruption than others - one does not become lax in anything from these affairs; all innovations are at war with the Sunnah - and connected [to these innovations] are very dangerous necessities that we have already discussed."

Alhamdulillaah, here in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, India, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, the Gulf, North Africa, the Caribbean - in these places, we have Salafis, Ulamah who visit, and students of knowledge always present, so as Shaikh Rabee' has stated on many occasions, ahlus-Sunnah are not in need of the innovators.

So, the point being, some of the Salaf would narrate hadeeth from the Mubtadi'ah in preservation of the Deen.

The Scholars would accept the Narrations of Ahlul-Bid'ah for the Preservation of the Hadeeth - But they would Disparage and Refute them for their Innovations!

Nu'aym bin Hammad (died 239H) stated:

It was said to Ibn al-Mubaarak (died 181H): "Why do you narrate from Sa'eed and Hishaam ad-Dastawaa'ee whilst you abandoned the hadeeth of 'Amr bin 'Ubaid, yet they all share the same view [in innovation]? He replied: "Amr bin 'Ubaid used to invite others to his views, he made apparent his da'wah whilst the other two would remain silent." (Mizaan al-I'tidaal 3/275)

This 'Amr bin 'Ubaid was one of the callers to the ideas of the Mu'tazilah. Ibn 'Iliyyah said:

"The first person to speak with the bid'ah of al-I'tizaal was Waasil al-Ghazaal, and 'Amr bin 'Ubaid joined him in that and became amazed with him - so he married his sister to him. He said to her: I have married you to a man who is worthy of being the Caliph." (Meezaan al-I'tidaal 3/275)

Nu'aim bin Hammaad (d. 239H):

"I heard Mu'aadh bin Mu'aadh raising his voice in the Masjid of Basrah - he was saying to Yahyah al-Qattaan: Do you not fear Allaah! You narrate from 'Amr bin 'Ubaid and I have heard him saying: If this [Soorah], "Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab and perish he.." (Soorah al-Masad) was in the Preserved Tablet, then it is still not for Allaah a proof upon the servants." (Meezaan al-I'tidaal 3/276)

This shows the precision, honesty, integrity and the Salafiyyah of the those great Scholars, they would not merely speak about the trustworthiness of a narrator, they would mention his bid'ah and warn against it. Likewise they would advise each other and forbid each other from falling into catastrophes - it is for this reason that Mu'aadh bin Mu'aadh raised his voice in the Masjid of Basrah and he said to Yahyah al-Qattaan: "Do you not fear Allaah! You narrate from 'Amr bin 'Ubaid!". So the scholars would correct each other - and not allows errors to remain. This noble characteristic of forbidding evil disappears when the Scholars die, or when the youth pay no heed to them. Abdullaah bin Mas'ood (radhi Allaahu 'anhu) said:

"So when the Ulamah disappear, the people become as one level, so they will no longer command the good, nor forbid the evil, and at that point they will be destroyed." (Sunan ad-Daarimee, 194)

Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Hadramee said:

I asked Ibn Ma'een (rahimahullaah) about 'Amr bin 'Ubaid, so he said: "His hadeeth narrations are not to be penned down!" I asked him: Because he used to lie? He responded: "He was a caller to his [innovated] religion." So I asked him: So why do you regard Qataadah to be trustworthy, and likewise Ibn Abee Aroobah and Salaam bin Miskeen? He answered: "They were truthful in their narrations, and they would not call others to their bid'ah." (Meezaan al-I'tidaal 3/277)

So this was the position of Ibn Qutaibah, Ibn al-Mubaarak, and Yahyah bin Ma'een and most of the Muhadditheen regarding narrating hadeeth of ahlul-Bid'ah. However alongside this it was known that others such as al-Bukhaaree would at times narrate even from callers to bid'ah who's truthfulness was established - yet alongside that they would mention the fact that they were innovators. An example of this is al-Bukhaaree narrating from 'Imraan bin Hitaan, who was a caller to the madhhab of the Khawaarij. Also 'Ibaad bin Ya'qoob ar-Rawaajinee al-Koofee - who was a well-known Raafidee, but he was considered truthful (sudooq). Abu Haatim considered him to be trustworthy, and if Ibn Khuzaimah would report from him, he would say: "Narrated to us someone who is trustworthy in narrating but blameworthy in his opinions (i.e. a person of bid'ah)." And al-Bukhaaree narrated only one connected hadeeth from him in the Chapter of Tawheed. (See Hadiyy as-Saaree p. 412, Diraasah fil-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, p. 115) So, look at how the Salaf would make clear the innovations of the narrators, warn against them and forbid their evil.

These Imaams would show the utmost honesty and transparency towards the narrators and the Imaams, they would present their chains of narration and the hadeeth to the most skilled in the field of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel. Imaam al-Awzaa'ee (died 157H), who was from great Imaams of the Salaf said:

"We would hear a hadeeth and then present it to our scholars just as one presents a counterfeit dirham to a teller - so what they accepted, we accepted and what they rejected, we rejected." (al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel 2/21)

Even though this great Scholar is an Imaam of the Sunnah - and love of him is a sign of a person's Sunnah, and hatred of him is a sign of a person's bid'ah and heresy - Adh-Dhahabee said after first citing the statement of Imaam Ahmad wherein he said about al-Awzaa'ee: "He is weak in hadeeth." So adh-Dhahabee:

"He intends that the ahaadeeth of al-Awzaa'ee are weak, due to the fact that he relied on disconnected chains and mursal narrations of the people of Shaam - and this is the cause of the weakness - and not because the Imaam is himself weak [in his station]."
(Siyar A'laam an-Nubalaa, 7/112)

Al-Bayhaqee said: "Ahmad intended that al-Awzaa'ee is not relied on in narrations; and not that he himself was weak in narrating." So al-Awzaa'ee was an Imaam in his own right however in certain issues he relied on ahaadeeth that were disconnected.
(Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb 6/242)

So this is clear - that even if an Imaam of ahlus-Sunnah was mistaken, they would correct him, but maintain his honour. As for ahlul-Bid'ah, then even if he was truthful, they would expose his innovations and warn the people from that, and not accord upon them any honour. So where now do we place Abu Usamah, Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, Yusuf al-Qardaawee, Zakir Naik, Al-Ma'rabee, Bilal Philips, Shadeed Muhammad and Abu Muslimah? Are they to be honoured and respected? Defended and praised? Do these deserve the position of Ahmad bin Hanbal towards al-Awzaa'ee or the position of Mu'aadh bin Mu'aah towards 'Amr bin 'Ubaid?

So these Imaams in their desire and necessity to preserve the ahaadeeth of Allaah's Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam), they would closely examine and scrutinise the narrators, to make sure of their reliability, precision and trustworthiness in narrating. At the same time, they would expose the bid'ah of the innovators, warn against them and command the people to abandon them. Their desire was the preservation of the Deen and the ahadeeth of the Prophet (salallaahu alaihi wassallam). They feared not the blame of the blamers, if they knew someone to be an innovator they would not hide his innovation. If someone's innovation was hidden from one scholar, it would not be hidden from another.

So we wonder, what is it that Abu Usamah saw from deficiencies and shortcomings in Shaikh Rabee' (hafidhahullaah) that led him to belittle him and state that he saw things in Shaikh Rabee' that prevent him from taking from him in particular affairs?! - till this day we have not seen his proofs, and even his so-called retraction he said: "no one asked me what I saw" - so what did you see Abu Usamah in this Imaam of deficiency that prevented you from him? This also brings us nicely to the wanton deceit and treachery of Abu Usamah and his fraud upon Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee (rahimahullaah). He stated that ash-Shaafi'ee praised and spoke well of Ibraaheem Ibn Abee Yahyah, so since he spoke good of this shaikh, then why criticise Adnan Abdul-Qaadir (and by extension Abu Usamah) for speaking good of his shaikh and teacher Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq and Abdullaah as-Sabt.

There is no doubt that this a mighty and deceptive falsehood that must be addressed It is a corrupt principle of Abu Usamah wherein he claims that the Salaf would praise ahlul-Bid'ah in absolute terms, and they would not be criticised by their peers - after all who would dare criticise Imaam ash-Shaaf'ee, right? And if you are not going to criticise Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee for [supposedly] praising a Raafidee Shi'ee, Jahmee, Mu'tazilee, then why criticise Abu Usamah for praising someone whose corruption is lesser than that?

We present here some of the sayings of Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee and other scholars concerning this Ibraaheem Ibn Abee Yahyah (who Abu Usamah claims was praised by ash-Shaafi'ee) - and remember O Sunni, what we have already quoted regarding the great Imaams of hadeeth, that they would narrate the Prophetic hadeeth after such scrutiny (that is unheard of in any other sphere of knowledge) from a person of innovation, and expose his bid'ah and warn from him in his Religion. So this Ibraheem ibn Abee Yahyah, the one that Abu Usamah tries to use as a proof to show that one can praise ahlul-Bid'ah, and not criticise each other regarding his innovation:

Ibn Ma'een said about him: "Kadhdhaab Raafidee! (A lying Shi'ite)."

Ar-Rabee' said: Ash-Shaafi'ee said about him: "Ibraheem Ibn Abee Yahyah was a Qadaree." So it was said to ar-Rabee': "So why did ash-Shaafi'ee narrate from him?" So ar-Rabee' said that ash-Shaafi'ee used to say: "It was more beloved to Ibraheem that he should fall from a height than to lie. So he was thiqah (trustworthy) in hadeeth."

(Tahdheeb al-Kamaal 2/188, al-Kaamil 1/218, as-Siyar 8/450)

So ash-Shaafi'ee did not deny the innovations of Ibraaheem bin Abee Yahyah, rather he held that he was a Qadaree (one who denied the Pre-Decree), but that he was truthful when it came to the hadeeth of the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wassallam) - which is more than what can be said for Abu Usamah al-Kadhdhaab, who doesn't care how much he has to lie to satisfy his narcissistic tendencies. So ash-Shaafi'ee (rahimahullaah) made clear the innovation of Ibn Abee Yahyah, alhamdulillaah. So why did Abu Usamah not make clear these additional words from ash-Shaafi'ee (rahimahullaah)? Answer: because Abu Usamah was looking for something to support his innovated principle. But it gets worse, look what else ash-Shaafi'ee and others said about this Ibraheem Ibn Abee Yahyah:

So from this one can see that though Shaafi'ee affirmed his bid'ah and foolishness - he nevertheless (in several citations from ash-Shaafi'ee) held him to be truthful. And we have already discussed above that the Imaams of hadeeth would accept the narrations of the mubtadi'ah (with conditions) whilst recognising and warning from their innovations.

This is a matter that Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah points out too, that the Imaams of the Sunnah would take narrations from those upon bid'ah but who were truthful nevertheless in order to prevent the greater of two evils, which is to prevent crucial and vital knowledge from being lost through lack of continued transmission (refer to Majmu' al-Fatawaa 28/210-213). So ash-Shaafi'ee was no different in that regard. Imaam adh-Dhahabee mentions in Tadhkiratul-Huffaadh (1/246) that "a group [of scholars] held him (Ibraaheem bin Abi Yahyaa) to be weak, even if with ash-Shaafi'ee he was trustworthy." However ash-Shaafi'ee himself said about him: "He was a Qadaree." i.e. that Ibraheem Ibn Abee Yahyah is truthful but he is an innovating Qadaree - so where has the Amaanah 'Ilmiyyah (being honest in conveying knowledge) disappeared to now, O Abaa Usamah? Or is that trust in conveying only reserved for when you're translating the praises of the innovators and sharing platforms with them? This is pure and utter treachery. Abu Usamah needs to humble himself, make tawbah, feel regret and remorse, and truly fear Allaah (the Most High, the One who is severe in retribution), rectify his affair, make a pure and sincere tawbah and bayaan for his innovations and crimes against the Salafi Da'wah and its people before Allaah take his soul and he is buried in the cold ground. And we seek refuge in Allaah from the wickedness of Abee Usamah - We seek from Allaah security and safety in our Deen, we ask the Most Merciful not to put us to trial with this man.

Abu Usaamah deceived his audience and did gross injustice to Imaam al-Shaaf'iee by repeatedly stating in his lecture that "ash-Shaaf'iee used to praise him..." and hiding the actual reality of the situation.

So what is it that Abu Usamah wishes to derive from his ascription to ash-Shaafi'ee?

Well, firstly that if he (Abu Usamah) praises an innovator, then don't criticise him, because some of the Salaf praised innovators. The answer to this has already been answered above in the reply to those who use the speech of Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin in praise of al-Ma'rabee - that is it is possible that a scholar does not know the deviations of a person so he withholds from criticising or even continues praising him. But the one who knows is a proof over the one who does not, and the detailed Jarh takes precedence over the general praise, as is well known.

The second direction that Abu Usamah is coming from has also been mentioned above, and that is that he sees deviations in the 'aqeedah as one sees differing in matters of [tolerated] ijtihaad, and the speech of Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah has already preceded, that describes Abu Usamah precisely.

The third angle of Abu Usaamah is that he truly believes that anyone can learn from innovators and sit in their circles, and that is why you see him constantly alongside them and praising them, and encouraging others with learning from them - and this position of his is in complete opposition to the ijmaa' (complete concesus) of the Salaf and their Scholars.

Misunderstanding Al-Mawaazanah - Completely and Utterly!

Regarding Ya'qoob bin Shaibah (died 262H) who was present in the time of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241H). The great Imaam adh-Dhahabee (d. 748H, rahimahullaah) stated in Siyar A'laam an-Nubalaa about him: "The great haafidh, al-'Allaamah, ath-thiqah (trustworthy)." Ahmad bin Kaamil al-Qaadee said: "Ya'qoob bin Shaibah was from the major companions of Ahmad bin al-Mu'adhdhal and al-Haarith bin Miskeen - was was a leading Faqeeh - but he withheld in the issue of the Qur'aan (by refusing to say, 'it is not created')." Imaam adh-Dhahabee (rahimahullaah):

"I say: He took his position of withholding in the Qur'aan from his Shaikh, the well-known Ahmad previously mentioned (i.e. bin al-Mu'adhdhal) - and likewise those who also withheld were Mus'ab az-Zubairee, Ishaaq bin Abee Israa'eel and a group - so nearly a thousand Imaams opposed them! Rather all the rest of the Imaams of the Salaf as well as the later Imaams upon the issue of them not rejecting that the Qur'aan is created, and their refusal to declare the Jahmiyyah to be unbelievers! We ask Allaah for safety in our Religion."

So how is one to understand these words of adh-Dhahabee (rahimahullaah) whereby he would mention the fact that an individual was an Aalim, Haafidh and Trustworthy (thiqah) and yet mention his innovations and misguidance?

Respected intelligent reader, rather than accepting the ignorance-filled ranting of this innovating liar Abu Usamah, let us quote the Imaam, Muhaddith and Mujaddid of this era, Shaikhul-Islaam Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) regarding these types of biographical accounts of the innovators:

“What is occurring now amidst the debates between many individuals regarding what has been called, or concerning this new bid’ah of “al-Muwaazanah” (counterbalancing between the good and bad points) with respect to criticising men.

I say: Criticism either occurs in the biography of an individual which is a “historical” biography in which case it is necessary to mention what is both good and bad with respect to the individual. However, when the intent behind the biographical detail of an individual is to warn the Muslims, and especially the general folk who do not have any knowledge pertaining to men and their defects - in fact it might even be the case that (this individual who is being warned against) might have a good reputation with the common folk. However, he is concealing an evil aqidah or evil habits, yet the common folk do not know any of this about this man - then in this particular situation, this innovation, which has been given the title of, “al-Muwaazanah” these days is not employed. This is because the intent here is to give advice (to the Muslims) and the intent is not to give comprehensive and exhaustive biographical details.."

Clearly Imaam adh-Dhahabee is giving a biographical account of the likes of Ya'qoob bin Shaibah and Ibraheem bin Abee Yahyah, as is known by anyone who has studied even the basics of the Sciences of Hadeeth and al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel! Will you contend with that Abu Usamah? Once again, you see this man's ignorance in the Deen and his deviant designs upon the youth.

Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) continues to say in the same recording:

However, what is important concerning this question is that at the end of this answer, I should say: Certainly, those who have innovated the bid’ah of “al-Muwaazanah”, no doubt they oppose the Book and they oppose the Sunnah, both the Sunnah of speech and that of action, and they oppose the manhaj of the Salaf us-Saalih.

Then Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) went on to say later in that same conversation:

"In short, I say: Certainly, the carrier of the flag of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel today, in the current times - and in truth – is our brother, Doctor Rabee’. And as for those who refute him, then they do not do so on the basis of knowledge ever."
(Cassette: “Man Haamil Raayah al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel Fil-Asr al-Haadir”, SalafiPublications.com)

So rather than taking the principles of hadeeth and Jarh wa Ta'deel from the Imaams of the Sunnah, Abu Usamah refers affairs back to his own desires. Who is the Scholar that Shaikh Al-Albaanee has praised in this field O Aba Usamah? It is the same Shaikh Rabee' whom you belittle, and have abandoned, and you have taken as you friends and allies the innovators - and all of this has resulted in the corruption of your Manhaj.

The question to Abu Usaamah that we raised at the beginning: do the errors of others justify your blind following? If the evidence comes to you, is it still permissible to blindly follow? Is it allowed to call others to your blind-following as you have done here? Is it permissible for you to open your ignorant mouth and rant on about things that you have no knowledge of? These words of Abu Uwais Abdullaah Ahmad Alee (rahimahullaah) sum up the problem with Abu Usaamah:

From this, the reader will have truly understood the shallowness of Abu Usaamah's knowledge (whilst accusing others of others of ignorance), his willingness to distort history, facts, situations and contexts regarding the people of knowledge in order to support and utilize Ikhwaani principles that his da'wah is clearly founded upon.

A Detailed Clarification That Shaykh Rabee’ Does Not Cooperate or Share Platforms with the People of Innovation - Hasan as-Somali

A Detailed Clarification That Shaykh Rabee’ Does Not Cooperate or Share Platforms with the People of InnovationA Response to the Claims of Aboo
Usaamah Khaleefah adh-DhahabeePrepared by Abu Abdillah Hasan as-Somali

In this short treatise, we discuss an attempt made by Aboo Usaamah Khaleefah to utilize a doubt spread by some of the followers of ’Alee Hasan al-Halabee to claim that Shaykh Rabee’ (hafidhahullaah) sits and cooperates with the Raafidah. Even a right-minded and just opponent would be surprised at this allegation and would consider it far-fetched. However, since Aboo Usaamah is speaking to an audience that either does not have the time, ability or motivation to investigate this matter, it is easy for him to convey these doubts and to misguide his listeners. The reality of the matter is that the ruling authorities in Saudi Arabia convened a gathering to discuss matters of national security and unity. Shaykh Rabee’ went to in order to openly refute the Raafidah and warn against their evils, which he did and as a result of which other Scholars such as Shaykh Saalih al-Luhaydaan (hafidhahullaah), stated that the Shaykh was the one who “exonerated himself” amongst all the others present. This is far different to the evil, distorted picture Aboo Usaamah has attempted to present. The followers of ’Alee al-Halabee tried to distort the history and facts regarding this matter because they were trying to defend the action of ’Alee al-Halabee in praising a document signed by a large numbers of innovators and in which there is a promotion of the unity of religions. Aboo Usaamah found nothing except this by which to deceive his listeners. His aim was to justify and defend his own actions of sharing platforms with people who are the students of Ikhwaanee innovators, who openly praise them and effectively invite to them. In addition to distorting facts about Shaykh Rabee’, Aboo Usaamah also went as far as to misuse a statement of Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) -rahimahullaah - in order to spread his confusion. In this short treatise, we highlight the errors of Aboo Usaamah and give him sincere advice to amend his ways and to repent from this disastrous path.

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ramzaan al-Haajiree on Shaykh Rabee's Attendance at the Conference for National Unity in Saudi Arabia

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ramzaan al-Haajiree on Shaykh Rabee's Attendance at the Conference for National Unity in Saudi Arabia

Recently, our noble brother, Hasan as-Somali presented a knowledge-based reply to Aboo Usaamah Khaleefah's attempt to justify his co-operation with the hizbiyyeen by comparing his actions to Shaykh Rabee' Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee attending the Conference for National Unity Saudi Arabia to present the views of Ahlus-Sunnah and refute the falsehoods of the Raafidah. Now Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ramzaan al-Haajiree further corroborates what Shaykh Saalih al-Luhaydaan and Shaykh Ahmad Baazmool have clarified.

The Shaykh, Muhammad Ibn Ramzaan stated,

"Yes, Shaykh Rabee' Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee attended this event in which the crown prince gathered together various groups (tawaa`if) and they attended it. And the role of Shaykh Rabee', as well as the role of others from the mashaayikh of Ahlus-Sunnah who attended was a role of sincere advice and clarification and elucidation of the misguidance that these (groups) are upon. And their (Shaykh Rabee' and the mashaayikh of Ahlus-Sunnah) call to was to unite them upon a singular, just word (i.e. the correct creed) and they did not gather with them to accommodate them nor flatter them and accept the falsehood they were upon.

I say this as a notification to the brothers so that they are not deceived by the statements of the false claimants." End of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ramzaan's words.

Shaqeel Said Clarifies the Distortion and Lie of Abu Usaamah Khaleefah

الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام على نبينا محمد وآله وصحبه أجمعين

In his so called lecture of "advice", and his follow ups thereafter, Abu Usaamah told countless lies against the Scholars of the past, such as Imaam al-Shaafi'ee, playing with the minds of his audience. Likewise he told lies about contemporary Scholars, such as Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee. When lying against Scholars comes this easy, then lying against those lesser than them from the Salafi callers and the Salafi brothers in general must mean very little. It must mean less than the dust on Abu Usaamah's shoes, given that he has done all of this in the blessed month of Ramadhaan.

In his lecture Abu Usaamah tried to use the name of the brother Shaqeel Said who of his own accord had issued a clarification and apology for translating for Saleem al-Hilaalee in a public lecture at the height of the fitnah of Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee. Saleem al-Hilaalee is from the band of individuals that took the way of Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee the Ikhwani innovator after his reality was made clear and he had been refuted amply and abundantly for his evil designs against the Salafi scholars and the Salafi da'wah. Here is the lying tongue of Abu Usaamah from that so called lecture of "advice" which in reality was a lecture of kadhib, talbees and buhtaan:

And also:

Alhamdulillaah, Allaah has exposed this man once again. Here is a letter of clarification from the brother Shaqeel (may Allaah reward him) which was forwarded to us today through a third party:

Alhamdulillaah, this is another clear proof for anyone with eyes to see and a heart with which to understand that Abu Usaamah is a deceptive liar with little fear of Allaah, from Allaah we seek aid and find refuge.